Critical Thinking Across the Curriculum: Empirical Argument Analysis

Critical Thinking
Across the
Curriculum Project

Analyzing Causal Arguments

Contributed by Michael Connelly, Longview Community College.

Evaluating Causal arguments:

In examining causal arguments, we first must note that all causal statements claim that some event A is responsible for bringing about some other event B. Thus we say that A caused B to occur, the implication being that had A not occurred, B would not have. How is the truth of such claims established? The most important thing to note about causal statements is that we never actually observe one event causing another event. What we do observe is that one event (B) often or always occurs shortly after another event (A) occurs. What we observe is a constant correlation between occurrences of A and B.

We note this not to make us skeptical about causal claims, but rather to point out that we can only verify them via observational evidence. In simple terms, we note that the events A and B are positively correlated. There are four possible ways to explain this correlation:

A causes B
B causes A (the causal influence is reversed)
A and B are both caused by some other event C (common causes)

The correlation between A and B is coincidental (no causal connection)

The analysis (and thus the veracity) of causal claims will focus around eliminating the explanations 2-4, leaving explanation 1 as the best alternative.
We will then wish to reconstruct the general form of a causal argument as follows:

P1: A is positively correlated with B
P2: If A is positively correlated with B, then either:

A causes B, or
the causal factors are reversed (B causes A), or
the correlation is the result of a common cause, or
the correlation is a coincidence.

P3: The causal factors are not reversed.
P4: The correlation is not the result of a common cause.
P5: The correlation is not a coincidence.
_______________________________
Q.E.D.- A causes B

The work in this analysis is proving the claims made by premises 3-5. Premise 3 can be established by observing the temporal sequence of the events. If A always happens before B in time, then it is a good bet that the causal relationship is not reversed. Premise 4 will require a bit more trouble - this is the work of science - eliminating the possibility of previous common causes. This is where we get experiments which attempt to control all of the possible external causes, etc. Premise 5 can be verified by observing the regularity of the correlation. Does B always occur after A does, or is it possible for A to occur without B occurring, or B without A? If so, then there is either another causal factor which is missing in some cases, or there are multiple causes for B. This makes the claim that A causes B a bit more difficult to establish. The most common mistake made in formulating a causal claim is that we move too quickly from the observation of a correlation to the conclusion that there is a casual relationship.

Copyright © 1996
Critical Thinking Across the Curriculum Project
Longview Community College , Lee's Summit, Missouri - U.S.A.
One of the Metropolitan Community Colleges
An Equal Opportunity/Affirmative Action Employer

Permission to reproduce these resource pages is granted for
non-profit educational use provided the above information
is retained on all copies.

Inquiries to: michael.connelly@mcckc.edu
Last modified: 03/02/04