Page 17 - The Logic of Causation

THE GENERIC DETERMINATIONS 17

combination, i.e. whether it is defined or implied as possible or impossible, or left open, is
then identified. In each case, the source of such modus is noted, i.e. whether it is given or
derivable from given(s).

Complete causation:

(i) If C, then E;
(ii) if notC, not-then E;
(iii) where: C is possible.

Table 2.1. Complete causation.

No Element/compound Modus Source/relationship
.
1 C possible (iii)
2 notC possible implied by (ii)
3 E possible implied by (i) + (iii)
4 notE possible implied by (ii)
5 C E possible implied by (i) + (iii)
6 C notE impossible (i)
7 notC E open
8 notC notE possible (ii)

Complete causation conforms to the paradigm of causation by means of the same main
clause (i); whereas its clause (ii), note well, concerning what happens in the absence of C,
substitutes for the invariable absence of E (i.e. “then notE”), the not-invariable presence of
E (i.e. “not-then E”). However, remember, contraposition of (i) implies that “If notE, then
notC”, meaning that in the absence of E we can be sure that C is also absent .
8
Clause (ii) means that (notC + notE) is possible, so we are sure from it that C is
unnecessary and E is unnecessary; also it teaches us that C and E cannot be exhaustive.
Technically, it would suffice for us to know that notE is possible, for we could then infer
clause (ii) from (i); but it is best to specify clause (ii) to fit the paradigm of causation. As
for clause (iii), we need only specify that C is possible; it follows from this and clause (i)
that (C + E) is possible and so that E is also possible.
Note well the nuance that, to establish such causation, the effect has to be found invariably
present in the presence of the cause, otherwise we would commit the fallacy of post hoc
ergo propter hoc; but the effect need not be invariably absent in the absence of the cause: it
suffices for the effect not to be invariably present.
The segment of the above table numbered 5-8 (shaded) may be referred to as the matrix of
complete causation. It considers the possibility or impossibility of all conceivable
conjunctions of all the items involved in the defining clauses or the negations of these
items.

Necessary causation:

(i) If notC, then notE;
(ii) if C, not-then notE;
(iii) where: C is unnecessary.

8
In some but not all cases, notE not only implies but causes notC, note.