causality
Let an agent state causal claims with their evidence and strength, and separate causation from correlation, attribution in law and events such as force majeure.
Research draft, second pass
A second pass drafted this model: the structure a model of this thing needs, and what is known about it in the world. The line under this one says how the second half was obtained - researched against sources, or recalled without web access, in which case nothing here was read anywhere and every claim is a lead to verify. Unreviewed either way.
written by Claude from model knowledge without web access - no source was read, every claim is a lead to verify
Researched by: Claude
Purpose and description
Let an agent state causal claims with their evidence and strength, and separate causation from correlation, attribution in law and events such as force majeure.
The relation between a cause and its effect, in which one event, state or process contributes to producing another; studied in philosophy, science, statistics, law and history.
What it is for: Explaining why things happen, predicting interventions and assigning responsibility.
It can be infer it, from experiments, natural experiments or causal models; test it, with interventions; attribute it, in law and accident investigation; explain it, in history and science.
Distinguishing features
Different from correlation
Causes can be necessary, sufficient or contributing
Legal causation uses its own tests
Force majeure is a legal category for events beyond control
What it looks like
Not visible; asserted in explanations and shown in diagrams such as causal graphs.
How it is recognised
Claims such as causes, leads to, results in
Causal diagrams and directed acyclic graphs
Legal tests such as but-for causation
Related models
is confused with - association without cause
produces - effects
is used in - liability and responsibility
is represented by - graphs and structural equations
In practice
Families and kinds
experimental and observational causal inference
legal causation: factual and legal
historical causation
philosophical accounts: regularity, counterfactual, interventionist
hetu-phala in Buddhist philosophy
Standards and regulation
Legal tests of causation in tort and criminal law
Force majeure clauses and doctrine in contract law
Reporting guidelines for causal inference in research
Failure modes and hazards
Inferring cause from correlation
Ignoring confounders and reverse causation
Single-cause explanations of complex events
Blame assigned without evidence
Also called
Where this came from
wikidata · CC0 1.0
Also registered as vr.tr.causality
Drafted structure
Bundle to layer to finding to question, as the second pass will find it: 4 bundles · 8 layers · 8 findings · 16 questions.
Claim What is said to cause what.
Causal claims need precise terms.
Cause and effect
The two sides.
Claim terms
Cause and effect defined.
- What exactly is claimed to cause what? definition
- Is the cause necessary, sufficient or contributing? definition
Mechanism
How it works.
Mechanism
The proposed mechanism.
- What mechanism links cause and effect? definition
- Is it established or hypothesised? boundary
Evidence How causation is shown.
Evidence strength varies greatly.
Study design
Experiment or observation.
Evidence design
The design of the evidence.
- What kind of evidence supports the claim? provenance
- Were confounders addressed? boundary
Strength
Consistency and dose-response.
Strength
Strength of evidence.
- How strong and consistent is the evidence? measurement
- Is there a dose-response relationship? measurement
Law Causation for liability.
Law uses specific causation tests.
Legal tests
But-for and proximate cause.
Legal test
The test applied.
- Which legal test of causation applies? provenance
- Does an intervening act break the chain? boundary
Force majeure
Events beyond control.
Force majeure
Whether an event qualifies.
- Does this event qualify as force majeure under the contract or law? boundary
- What notice is required? action
Communication Stating causal claims.
Language should match evidence.
Wording
Causes vs associated with.
Wording
The strength of language.
- Does the wording match the strength of evidence? boundary
- What caveats are needed? action
Responsibility
Blame and fairness.
Attribution
Attribution of responsibility.
- Is responsibility being attributed fairly on the evidence? boundary
- Who has authority to decide it? provenance
What the second pass must settle
- Should legal and scientific causation be separate entries?
- How should agents grade the strength of causal claims?
- The registry entry has merged aliases such as force majeure and mechanical failure; should they be split off?