Difference between "To Cause" and "To Make

  • Thread starter Imparcticle
  • Start date
  • Tags
    Cause
In summary, Swartz argues that logical fatalism confuses the semantic order and makes it seem like the truth of a proposition causes an event to occur. However, he argues that it is the event's occurrence that makes the proposition true, but does not cause it. He uses the example of John Lennon's death to illustrate his point and concludes that stating a true proposition does not cause the event to occur. He holds this argument as one of the bases for his belief in free will. However, it is argued that his reasoning is flawed and that he needs to show that the true proposition itself does not determine the event.
  • #1
Imparcticle
573
4
What's the difference between "to cause" and "to make" in this context:

Consider: My wearing a short-sleeved shirt today [Oct. 28] is what makes (the proposition expressed by) "Swartz is wearing a short-sleeved shirt on Oct. 28, 1997" true. It is not the other way round. Logical fatalism confuses the semantic (truth-making) order. It makes it appear that the truth of a proposition 'causes' an event to occur. It is, rather, that the event's occurring tomorrow 'makes' (but does not cause) the proposition to be true today. This is not 'backwards causation': the relation between an event and the truth of the proposition describing that event is not a causal relation whatever. It is a semantic relation.

http://www.sfu.ca/philosophy/swartz/freewill1.htm#intro


Thankx.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #2
Does logical fatalism really say that the truth of a proposition causes its manifestation in reality? I think Schwarz might be arguing a straw-man here.
 
  • #3
He's saying that a proposition makes an event true today because it has happened, but he says it does not cause it to be true. I don't see the difference between making and causing something to occur. :confused:
 
  • #4
I still don't follow his reasoning. A proposition is only a statement. Stating something to be true doesn't make it true. The truth of a statement is determined through empirical investigation.
 
  • #5
He makes a clearer example following the aforementioned one:
The logic of the preceding paragraph can perhaps be made apparent by switching the example to one of speaking about the past rather than the future.

John Lennon was shot and killed in 1980. Let's suppose a group of ten persons is arguing about the year of his death. Alice says that it was 1976; Betty, that it was 1977; Cathy, that it was 1978; Denise, that it was 1979; Edith, that it was 1980; Freda, that it was 1981; etc.

Of the ten claims made, only Edith's is true. The other nine are false. Now ask yourself: Does Edith's making a true claim today (about the year of Lennon's death) account for Lennon's killing? Did Edith's asserting a truth today about Lennon's killing somehow or other 'force' Mark David Chapman to fire five bullets into Lennon's chest? Of course not. Now what if the year of the discussion were 1975? Alex says, "Lennon will be killed in 1976." Bellamy says that it will happen in 1977. Charles, that it will happen in 1978. Damien, that it will happen in 1979. Eduardo, that it will happen in 1980. Frank, that it will happen in 1981. Graham, that it will happen in 1982. Etc. Of the ten discussants, one, namely Eduardo, gets it 'right'; the other nine make false predictions. Does Eduardo's true prediction (in 1975) somehow or other 'force' Mark David Chapman to fire five bullets into Lennon's chest five years later, in 1980? Of course not.

Similarly you and I can make all sorts of predictions – some true, some false, some on the basis of excellent evidence ("There will be a lunar eclipse on Sept. 19, 2499"), some on the basis of no evidence whatever ("Simon Fraser University will remove all tuition fees in 1999") – but those that are true do not 'force' the predicted events to occur.

does that make sense?
 
  • #6
Sure. He's saying exactly what I'm saying - that making a true statement does not cause the event the statement is describing to occur. I don't know of anyone who says that it does. This is where my question comes in. What position exactly is he arguing against?
 
  • #7
He is confusing an instance of a proposition with the proposition itself.
 
  • #8
loseyourname said:
Sure. He's saying exactly what I'm saying - that making a true statement does not cause the event the statement is describing to occur. I don't know of anyone who says that it does. This is where my question comes in. What position exactly is he arguing against?

The aforementioned quotes are excerpts from his essay which deals with free will. He is arguing free will exists. The quotes I posted are a part of the basis on which he is arguing that the future is not forced and thus there is free will, basically. He has other arguments but that's the basic idea.
 
  • #9
Imparcticle said:
The aforementioned quotes are excerpts from his essay which deals with free will. He is arguing free will exists. The quotes I posted are a part of the basis on which he is arguing that the future is not forced and thus there is free will, basically. He has other arguments but that's the basic idea.

Stating a proposition doesn't cause an event to occur.
Therefore, the future is not determined.

I hope his other arguments are better, because that aint one to send home to mother.
 
  • #10
His other arguments are okay.
 
  • #11
His argument is incorrect. He argues that stating a proposition which happens to be true does not cause the event which the proposition represents to happen. What he NEEDS to argue, to support his thesis, is that the proposition ITSELF which is true--independent of any statement of it--does not determine (whether by causation or not) the event which it represents.
 

What is the difference between "To Cause" and "To Make"?

The main difference between "To Cause" and "To Make" is their grammatical usage and meaning. "To Cause" is a verb that means to be the reason for something or to bring about an effect or result. On the other hand, "To Make" is a verb that means to create or produce something.

How are "To Cause" and "To Make" used in a sentence?

"To Cause" is usually followed by a noun or a gerund and is used to describe the action or event that leads to a certain result. For example, "The heavy rain caused the river to flood." On the other hand, "To Make" is followed by a noun or adjective and is used to describe the action of creating or producing something. For example, "The artist made a beautiful painting."

Can "To Cause" and "To Make" be used interchangeably?

No, "To Cause" and "To Make" cannot be used interchangeably as they have different meanings and grammatical usage. "To Cause" implies a cause-effect relationship, while "To Make" implies an action of creating or producing something.

What is the context in which "To Cause" is commonly used?

"To Cause" is commonly used in contexts related to events, actions, or situations that lead to a certain outcome or result. It is also used to describe negative effects or consequences of a particular action or event.

How does the understanding of "To Cause" and "To Make" impact scientific research?

The understanding of "To Cause" and "To Make" is crucial in scientific research as it helps in accurately describing the relationship between different variables and their effects. It also helps in clearly communicating the methods and processes used in experiments and studies.

Similar threads

The Law of the Excluded Middle and Free Will
    • General Discussion
2
Replies
38
Views
6K
I Wheeler's delayed choice doesn't change the past
    • Quantum Physics
5
Replies
157
Views
11K
On Hume, Simultineity, the Fractal Nature of Reality in Time and Inductivism
    • General Discussion
Replies
22
Views
6K
Is increasing diversity and decentralization the key to grid cybersecurity?
    • General Discussion
Replies
2
Views
2K
Philosophy and Physics-physics needs philosophy?
    • General Discussion
Replies
2
Views
2K
Is There a Need for Expanded Science to Unify Philosophy and Science?
    • General Discussion
Replies
1
Views
2K
Is Kant's philosophy the solution to Hume's crisis in philosophy?
    • General Discussion
Replies
2
Views
4K
Definition of Separable & Rules for Physical Systems: 65 Characters
    • General Discussion
Replies
6
Views
5K
Guiding principles from the great physicists to take us beyond the standard model
    • General Discussion
Replies
6
Views
3K
Chapter 7: Paradoxes for Liberal Naturalism
    • General Discussion
Replies
33
Views
5K

Hot Threads

Recent Insights

Back
Top