eduardo wrote:May I give apologies for not being here to answer the questions, but I can only be here occasionally. I think my point has been answered by others.
It is clear that some causes are easier to link to their effects than others as I tried to illustrate with some examples. yes to attribute a single cause to anything can be disputed.

GrahamH wrote:

newolder wrote:

GrahamH wrote:Since its your birthday I'll just suggest that once you are done celebrating you could try explaining how falling under a bus is entirely unlike getting cancer, in terms of causes and effects, as Eduardo suggests.

eduardo agreed that smoking causes cancer with the proviso that it doesn't always do so and then gave 2 instances where (unspecified) consequences would definitely follow from causes.

Eduardo did not do that, which is the point here.

Firstly, eduardo didn't even give cause and effect, but if we assume the effect is death then certainly that does not "definitely follow" from falling under a bus or falling from a ladder.

No more so than a cancerous cell results from activation of an oncogene.
The main distinguishing feature of Eduardo examples is that they are quick and visible, not that there is any more or less of a causal connection.

THommo made the point well:

eduardo wrote:

Thommo wrote:I don't think equivocating between "immediate cause" and "cause" is going to help.

Nonetheless cells with activated oncogenes and no blood supply don't cause cancer. Other conditions also must be present or absent.

That is true. It was what I was saying that there is no clear cause for cancer.
It is not simple like falling under a bus or off a ladder.

A fairer comparison might be, from general to more specific :

Smoking kills <--> traffic kills <--> Working at height is dangerous

Smoking causes cancer (etc) <--> Vehicles contribute to collisions with pedestrians (pollution etc)<--> Working at height causes high energy ground impacts
Cancer causes physical trauma <--> vehicles cause physical trauma <--> ground impact causes physical trauma

In each case some failure of essential biological processs causes death

Cancer, and other diseases caused by smoking, cause the damage on a longer timescale and are less visible, but why would that be less causal than a faster process?

It's pretty much arbitrary what you focus on and what you leave out. "falling under a bus" leaves out almost everything.

newolder wrote:

GrahamH wrote:

newolder wrote:

GrahamH wrote:Since its your birthday I'll just suggest that once you are done celebrating you could try explaining how falling under a bus is entirely unlike getting cancer, in terms of causes and effects, as Eduardo suggests.

eduardo agreed that smoking causes cancer with the proviso that it doesn't always do so and then gave 2 instances where (unspecified) consequences would definitely follow from causes.

Eduardo did not do that, which is the point here.

Firstly, eduardo didn't even give cause and effect, but if we assume the effect is death then certainly that does not "definitely follow" from falling under a bus or falling from a ladder.

No more so than a cancerous cell results from activation of an oncogene.
The main distinguishing feature of Eduardo examples is that they are quick and visible, not that there is any more or less of a causal connection.

THommo made the point well:

eduardo wrote:

Thommo wrote:I don't think equivocating between "immediate cause" and "cause" is going to help.

Nonetheless cells with activated oncogenes and no blood supply don't cause cancer. Other conditions also must be present or absent.

That is true. It was what I was saying that there is no clear cause for cancer.
It is not simple like falling under a bus or off a ladder.

A fairer comparison might be, from general to more specific :

Smoking kills <--> traffic kills <--> Working at height is dangerous

Smoking causes cancer (etc) <--> Vehicles contribute to collisions with pedestrians (pollution etc)<--> Working at height causes high energy ground impacts
Cancer causes physical trauma <--> vehicles cause physical trauma <--> ground impact causes physical trauma

In each case some failure of essential biological processs causes death

Cancer, and other diseases caused by smoking, cause the damage on a longer timescale and are less visible, but why would that be less causal than a faster process?

It's pretty much arbitrary what you focus on and what you leave out. "falling under a bus" leaves out almost everything.

No, the point here is that you continue to refuse to answer my question related to why you are asking for a single cause for falling because you know that it was an obtuse rendering of cause and effect. Heigh ho.

GrahamH wrote:

eduardo wrote:...(newolder edit) snip sections that are not relevant to the point being addressed here... (newolder edit)

It is not simple like falling under a bus or off a ladder.

What's the clear cause for falling under a bus?

newolder wrote:

GrahamH wrote:

eduardo wrote:...(newolder edit) snip sections that are not relevant to the point being addressed here... (newolder edit)

It is not simple like falling under a bus or off a ladder.

What's the clear cause for falling under a bus?

Why are you asking about the cause for falling under a bus when eduardo is writing about its effect?

newolder wrote:

GrahamH wrote:

eduardo wrote:...(newolder edit) snip sections that are not relevant to the point being addressed here... (newolder edit)

It is not simple like falling under a bus or off a ladder.

What's the clear cause for falling under a bus?

Why are you asking about the cause for falling under a bus when eduardo is writing about its effect?

newolder wrote:
Why are you asking about the cause for falling under a bus when eduardo is writing about its effect?

eduardo wrote:
Yes you are correct it was a simple example of a cause. The effect would be death or serious injury but that is not the important point.

GrahamH wrote:

newolder wrote:

GrahamH wrote:

eduardo wrote:...(newolder edit) snip sections that are not relevant to the point being addressed here... (newolder edit)

It is not simple like falling under a bus or off a ladder.

What's the clear cause for falling under a bus?

Why are you asking about the cause for falling under a bus when eduardo is writing about its effect?

You say you are Not being obtuse?

Eduardo is presenting "falling under a bus" a cause with some simple relation to an unspecified effect. I.e. eduardo is not "writing about its effects." It is not simple. Like smoking and cancer it is complex. I'm pointing that out with a simple question, in the context of other posts. It is not a single cause / effect: (falling under a bus) <-> (death). Its not definite. There are many factors, many causes and many effects.
It is superficially "clear" because you can see some of happen in front of you and you can ignore the complexity