Adonis Diaries

Archive for June 20th, 2010

What is Causative Principle? What use of cause and effects?

Are there any foundations for cause and effects relationship to phenomena? Currently, we are living in five “scientific worlds”. 

The first world is called natural or the classical physical world and their corresponding scientists who are enamored with cause and effects relationship to phenomena.

The second world is called human/social sciences that is trying hard to emulate the cause and effects foundations.  But the living men are so complex with infinite numbers of variability and interactions that it is very difficult not to end up with biased experimental designs and procedures.  Most physical scientists would love to categorize mankind sciences as pseudo-sciences, though the experimental designs in natural sciences are almost trivial or archaic compared to the comprehensive, versatile, and complex social sciences design experiments.

The third world is at the macro level and called the Relativity World or Einstein theory.

The fourth world is at atomic and subatomic level and called Quantum World or Heisenberg World.

The fifth world or animal kingdom sciences is more complex than mankind sciences, but it is made much simpler by assuming (ignoring) many variables on account that we are unable to communicate effectively with animals, and especially, with insects.

Now, the classical world of scientists dump observations or “evidences” in the macro world that cannot be explained by cause and effects methods into the “black box” of Einstein.  Observations and “evidences” in the micro world are dumped into the Heisenberg “black box”.  As for the human and social “pseudo-sciences”, observations and evidences that cannot be satisfyingly explained are dumped into the Freudian “black box”.

Einstein wrote: “Two years before the publication of my theory on General Relativity, I thought that my equations could not be confirmed by experiments. I was convinced that an invariant law of gravitation relative to any transformations of coordinates was not compatible with the causality principle. Astronomic experiments proved me right in 1915.”  

Thus, Einstein didn’t believe that his theory was compatible to causality principle or cause and effects relationship.  What “validated” his theory was not within the rationality concept, but simply because it was the only other paradigm that was offered along side classical sciences. Evidences not explained by causality principle were categorized within the relativity principle. 

Also, quantum physics cannot work within classical causality principle simply because time and location in the atomic world cannot be determined simultaneously. So, how causality principle got such a hold on our comprehension of the universe?

The main question is: Are cause and effects relationship valid tools for explaining the “real world”? Or are they used as an interpretation gimmicks to observed phenomena wrapped under the code name of rational and logical thinking? 

Take any phenomena and its set of cause and effects relationship and you will realize that an expanded definition of the phenomena and an exhaustive description of the processes can be valid “stand alone” in describing the real world.

Fact is, a child brain develop causality processes to view the world in a coherent fashion and to navigate securely in his universe.  Time line, successive events in time, and space organization are basic guidelines for the brain to complete its re-structuring.  Thus, sciences are fundamentally methods to codify “logically” how our brain was trained to comprehend its universe and how it functions.

Otherwise, “unscientific” methods are labelled “metaphysical” pseudo-thinking.  Thus, fundamentally, the universe has always functioned without the need of having a cause to affecting other events: cause and effects experiments are plainly rational methods meant to satisfying the way our brain was wired to comprehend the successive events and phenomena.  Scientific methods extend the illusions of achieving better and more accurate and plausible definitions and description of a phenomena.

How scientific methods were fine tuned?  My interpretation is based on two elements:  first, Measuring instruments and second, direct observations by mankind sensory organs.  I include microscope and telescope as extensions to direct sensory visual observations.

There are measuring instruments that use energies outside the capability of mankind to sensing directly and consequently, the corresponding observations are transformed into sensory energies within man capabilities. I classify these measuring instruments as mental interpretation to observations and thus, categorized as more “abstract” facts or evidences than normal sensing.  Measuring instruments within the capability of mankind sensing are the “culprit” to modern causality principle.  Why?

Measuring instruments are conscious inventions meant to validating “philosophical” concepts or visions:  They are essentially biased to confirming what man wants to believe in. 

Fact is, we observe what we originally intend to see; thus, we design experiments according to pre-conceived ideas or hypothesis and we implicitly want confirmation of what we had in mind as the most plausible occurrence to any phenomena.

There are many kinds of experiments not designed to discovering cause and effects but to collecting observations or data in order to discriminate among trends.  These experiments and corresponding statistical packages are meant as exploratory steps in order to designing more focused and “principled” experiments.

Basically, human and social sciences want to get positioned so that they can be counted as “real or hard” sciences, though they are doing science and their results are far more informative than physical science.

Soon, a scientist will offer an alternative paradigm to “Einstein world” and scientists will get busy emptying all the evidences contained in the Einstein black box and classifying them according to the appropriate paradigmatic world.  That is what scientists do: classifying observed characteristics and features into distinct categories; best if the categories are exclusively distinct from one another.

The same process will happen when someone offers an alternative paradigm to Heisenberg world.  All that I wish is that science be focused on the well being of mankind and his environment.  That is where most funding should be diverted to.

And nature follows its course and has nothing to do with mankind experiments and rational thinking.  And the chance happening of us the living, who were born, we have to pay the ultimate price after surviving the infantile phase…

So, who won? Israel or Hezbollah? Or are we asking the wrong question?

Note:  I decided to re-publish an article posted on May 14, 2007 in order to get a perspective for newer analysis of the situation

Thomas Friedman has written an article a few days ago claiming that Israel has won the July 2006 War tactically, strategically and politically. The Israeli daily Yedeot Ahronot is adopting this position in an attempt to win over the shattered Israeli morale. That Israel had won tactically by destroying extensively and hatefully the headquarters and the military and social installations and institutions of Hezbollah and weakening it temporarily is not a big feat, given the military imbalance in the kind of air and naval superiority with the full backing of the US and the treachery of the Arab States.  Israel foreign minister Sevy Livney declared that in the first two days all the targets in the Israeli intelligence “data bank” have been exhausted and she urged Olmert PM to end the war on the third day.  That Olmert felt emboldened to resume the war for another 30 days, and then, accepting a cease fire without effectively reaching the Litany River (two miles away) means that the purpose of the war was modified at the urge of external powers to eradicate the Lebanese Resistance and shatter the image of the invincible Hezbollah.

That Israel had won strategically because its northern borders have been very quiet for seven months after the war is a half truth; the international UN forces are there because Hezbollah allowed its deployment.  Fact is,  the borders have been very quiet since Israel’s unilateral withdrawal from south Lebanon in May 24, 2000.  The few encroachments were the results of Israeli incursions in Lebanon:  Hezbollah reacted only on these infiltrations or attacks within our borders. That Israel had to stop its incursion in Lebanon with all the backing it was enjoying from the US, Europe ans “moderate” Arab States proves that its strategy was foiled and severely checked.

Friedman claims that Israel has won politically because the Lebanese army has entered the south is also a half truth: Hezbollah didn’t mind the deployment of the Lebanese army which saved it from further escalations and unwanted pressures from the UN and the need to focus more on the internal political  affairs of Lebanon.  The immeasurable popular support from all the Arab and Moslem citizens for Hezbollah’s valiant resistance is by no means a political victory for Israel; it is a severe defeat because it rekindled the resistance spirit in the Arabs.  The inability of Israel to squelch the second Palestinian “intifada” is rooted in the rejuvenated spirit of resistance in Palestine as well as in Iraq.

Certainly, Hezbollah has been temporarily weakened militarily and that the “illegitimate”  Lebanese Seniora’s government has been doing its utmost to capitalize on that fact and dragging Hezbollah in the morass of Lebanon’s political quagmire. The “illegitimate” Lebanese government is deliberately re-opening tough issues that have been agreed on during the round table before the July War and giving them diabolical twists on the basis that the devil is in the details. The Moderate Arab States (a euphemism for traitors States who encouraged Israel to eradicate Hezbollah) are harnessing their widespread communication media to dissipate the popular support for Hezbollah and labeling it as merely an Iranian stooge and working against the interest of the Arabs who want peace and prosperity with Israel.

Hezbollah must have learned a great deal from this unilateral stand against Israel but there is a most important message that Hezbollah failed to get.  It is extremely dangerous for Hezbollah’s charismatic leader Hassan Nasr Allah to swear on promises (Wa3ad) that are long-term in nature for their realizations and then,  feeling pressured to deliver them almost immediately. For example, the last promise to repair and rebuild what has been destroyed, almost instantly and with “pure halal” money, is too impractical and fraught with decisions that overextend the capabilities of Hezbollah beyond its limits and weaken it in the process.  The other example was a promise before the war to snatch a few more Israeli soldiers as prisoners in order to liberate the remaining three Lebanese who have been detained for more than 15 years; it is laudable to make such kind of promises but when it is uttered in a “divine” revelation by Nasr Allah himself it becomes very binding and communications with Hezbollah’s allies become tenuous. It is dangerous to rely on Nasr Allah to publicly force decisions, as if emanating from a prophet, and to clarify issues that should be left to the leadership and its allies within the political process.

It is inadmissible for Nasr Allah to appear during religious celebration to deliver political speeches that give the opposite results and reflect images of increased weaknesses for relying on the religious faith and passions of its supporters instead on the rational and deliberate mind that our society is in dire need to overcome a strong enemy.

I believe that people are asking the wrong question.  It is not whether Hezbollah has won the war because just by getting out strong and effective after 33 days of a savage war of eradication, with no serious support internally or externally, is a striking victory.  The question should be whether the US-Israeli-”Moderate” Arabs States objectives have achieved any tangible results.  Nasr Allah has claimed that not a single objective came out satisfactorily neither tactically, strategically, nor politically in Lebanon or in the “Greater Middle East region”. The response should be focused on refuting Nasr Allah’s claims, satisfactorily and convincingly.  So far, no one discredited Nasr Allah’s claims.




June 2010

Blog Stats

  • 1,515,908 hits

Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog and receive notifications of new posts by

Join 821 other subscribers
%d bloggers like this: