Re: Causation in Physics: F=ma

[Bernard Cleyet <anngeorg@PACBELL.NET>]

Much time was spent on this subject in freshman intro. to Philosophy.
I was "taught" there is no cause only temporal propinquity.

bc, who uses the excuse of 45 years.

John S. Denker wrote:

> On 11/14/2003 08:55 AM, Justin Parke wrote:
> >
> > In this case [see below] there is a claim to a definite cause
> > and effect.  Does this contradict what you are saying?
>
> Bob Sciamanda wrote:
>
> >>  I think it needs to be emphasized that N2 is a statement
> >>  about INTERACTIONS (Forces).  It says that interactions
> >>  produce momentum changes.  The converse is dangerous:
> >>  Momentum "changes" concocted by merely considering more or
> >>  less than the mass originally under consideration are not
> >>  evidence of interaction forces.
>
> Well, I don't see in that a "definite" claim that F=ma
> expresses cause-and-effect.
>
> People often say "A because of B" when they really mean either
>  -- "A is necessarily associated with B" or
>  -- "we can calculate A because we know B".
> ... neither of which states anything about causation.
>
> I have tried for years to train myself to speak precisely about
> causation, and have not entirely succeeded.  In the proofreading
> process I grep for all occurrences of 'cause' and scrutinize them
> ... and usually I have to remove them and replace them with some
> expression such as 'associated with'.  I beseech other people to
> be careful also, and I sympathize, knowing it won't be easy.