A Structural Systemic Theory of Causality and Catalysis
In this chapter I compare catalytic theory of causality with structural–systemic theory of causality. I begin with the discussion about why the notion of causality matters and how it is related to scientific explanation. I show that linear cause–effect (i
- PDF / 381,377 Bytes
- 22 Pages / 439 x 666 pts Page_size
- 67 Downloads / 178 Views
A Structural Systemic Theory of Causality and Catalysis Aaro Toomela
This book intends to explore the basic concept of catalysis in philosophy, chemistry, and psychology, with the aim of developing the concept further in (cultural) psychology. This aim implies that the concept is, in principle, useful and the only question is how to use it most efficiently for advancing psychology as a science. In the context of modern mainstream psychology (see Toomela in press-c, for the definition of ‘mainstream psychology’), indeed, any step further from linear cause–effect theory of causality is a significant advancement; yet it does not follow that the concept in the proposed form should be used.
Why the Notion of Causality Matters? Though science aims to explain and understand, not all kinds of explanations can be considered scientific. For instance, it is hard for many Christians to understand how God created the world, both in six days and instantaneously—both versions are suggested in the Book of Genesis. These two views may seem absolutely contradictory to anybody with reasonably developed intellect. Yet the brightest minds have proposed brilliant solutions to this contradiction. Among many wonderful ideas derived from discussing the time of creation, we find, for example, a suggestion by St. Augustine, according to whom, “God finished all his works in six days because six is a perfect number.” It was also made clear by others that “The creation of things is explained by the number of six, the parts of which, one, two, and three, assume the form of a triangle” (White 1896, p. 7, my emphasis; see also many other explanations for this contradiction ibid.). Here we find not only an explanation as to why it took exactly six days to create the universe but also a causal explanation as to why it took six and not any other number of days. Indeed, as the number six assumes the form of a A. Toomela () Institute of Psychology, Tallinn University, Narva Rd. 29, 10120 Tallinn, Estonia e-mail: [email protected]
K. R. Cabell, J. Valsiner (eds.), The Catalyzing Mind, Annals of Theoretical Psychology 11, DOI 10.1007/978-1-4614-8821-7_15, © Springer Science+Business Media New York 2014
271
272
A. Toomela
triangle; obviously it took six days to create the universe, and, as a triangle is one, the creation was also instantaneous. This causal explanation, however, would not be considered scientific today, at least by scientists. Thus, we can conclude that even though all scientific knowledge is knowledge, not all knowledge is scientific. So far I have written only a few lines and already introduced confusion that needs to be cleared up: I use the terms ‘explanation,’ ‘science,’ ‘scientific,’ and ‘causality’ as if it is clear what these terms mean; yet this is not the case. Next, I will discuss why causality matters for science.
Scientific Explanation and Causality Detailed discussion regarding the essence of scientific explanation and understanding goes beyond the scope of this chapter. I will give only a brief outline of the issu
Data Loading...
