Cause for Concern

So . . . I was reading a column by one of my favorite writers, Bill Simmons (this is the second consecutive blog that I go after him for something, but I actually really enjoy his stuff), the other day and the opening paragraph made me gasp in horror (figuratively). Here's what he wrote:

"I hate hearing the phrase "There's no answer." I can't accept it. Everything within reason should have an answer. And if you can't come up with one? Come up with a theory."

Guess what? There isn't always an answer. And coming up with a theory is often a bad idea, because we tend to draw on the obvious and apparent, and ignore that there may be causes that are hidden and unknown - unknown even to the actor.

Whether everything within reason has an answer, knowable or unknowable, is a philosophical question. That we cannot and do not always know the answer, or have the capacity to discover it, is not a philosophical question, it is a fact. When we ascribe causes or blame, bad things usually happen (world wars, genocides, Ann Coulter books). Yet we still persist in doing this (yes, it persists even though I've already written a similar blog on the topic - I guess no one followed my advice).

But this time I'm not writing about placing blame vs. taking action, but rather our propensity for searching out causes (noble) and coming to conclusions (bad idea); in other words, our naive scientism. A scientist methodically theorizes and tests various causes. What we do, instead, is the theorizing without the testing. And we seem to believe that knowledge of underlying causes is within our grasp, which it isn't.

Equally troublesome is our tendency to take causes and see effects that may not be there. Howard Stern (whom I enjoy) does this all the time - radio or Wi-fi waves must be bad for you because they are floating around. How can they not be bad for you? This type of thinking caused a good portion of a whole generation avoid vaccines. Putting part of a virus or disease into you? Must have an ill effect. I know, let's say it causes autism. Doesn't matter if the data doesn't support it, there is a cause, so there must be an effect.

In today's paper I read about a group of churchgoers who were prosthelytizing in a Toronto neighbourhood. Apparently an altercation ensued because some of the neighbourhood people were offended at the recruiting because they believed that the religion-pushing was directed specifically at a homosexual couple who lived nearby. Now, it is certainly possible that this was the motivation of the parishioners; however, it is equally likely that it was not. The altercation could have been caused by the neighbours determining on their own that this must have been the motivation of the parishoners, due to their own biases about people who would prosthelytize Christianity. In other words, they ascribed a cause to others' behaviour, with incomplete information. Maybe the church-folk were only trying to spread the word about Jesus to people who didn't really want to hear it.

I do this as much as anyone (ascribing causes, not prosthelytizing - I'm not a character in a Tim LaHaye book) - when I get bad reviews back about my research, my initial reaction is that the reviewer didn't understand the topic or the paper, or that they didn't read it thoroughly enough. Of course, that same reasoning could apply to me (I didn't communicate effectively). The real reasons for the bad review could have nothing to do with those (maybe a personal vendetta?). Anyway, keep this in mind when you comment on my blog - I'll be in the background checking and ascribing causes to your reactions.