more on this theme | more from this thinker
Full Idea
A may be the cause of B even if there actually are cases of B not following A. Striking a match will be the cause of its igniting, in spite of the fact that some matches are damp and fail to ignite.
Gist of Idea
Striking a match causes its igniting, even if it sometimes doesn't work
Source
Bertrand Russell (On the Notion of Cause [1912], p.185)
Book Ref
Russell,Bertrand: 'Mysticism and Logic' [Unwin 1989], p.185
A Reaction
An important point, although defenders of the constant conjunction view can cope with it. There is a further regularity between dampness of matches and their failure to strike.
| 4396 | The law of causality is a source of confusion, and should be dropped from philosophy [Russell] |
| 8375 | 'Necessary' is a predicate of a propositional function, saying it is true for all values of its argument [Russell] |
| 8376 | If causes are contiguous with events, only the last bit is relevant, or the event's timing is baffling [Russell] |
| 8378 | Philosophers usually learn science from each other, not from science [Russell] |
| 8379 | In causal laws, 'events' must recur, so they have to be universals, not particulars [Russell] |
| 8380 | Striking a match causes its igniting, even if it sometimes doesn't work [Russell] |
| 8381 | The constancy of scientific laws rests on differential equations, not on cause and effect [Russell] |