andrew p long
Very well known Exeweb poster
The sending off could usefully be included in the teaching of causation, particularly to demonstrate the mantra that we only *see* events but never *see* causes , which we simply *infer*.
The classic example usually taught relates to snooker when the white ball strikes the red ball. We see the white ball strike the red, we see the white ball stop and we see the red ball move. We think that the white ball has caused the red ball to move but we only infer it, we haven't seen the cause.
That seems difficult to accept, because surely we know that the white ball has caused the red ball to move - and indeed we build laws of motion accordingly.
But then you see Saturday's sending off and all becomes clear. We *see* Woods head go toward Guthrie, we may *see* contact between Woods head and Guthrie's chest and we *see* Guthrie fall to the floor. The referee sees Guthrie fall to the floor and infers but doesn't see that the force of the contact has caused Guthrie to fall.
The classic example usually taught relates to snooker when the white ball strikes the red ball. We see the white ball strike the red, we see the white ball stop and we see the red ball move. We think that the white ball has caused the red ball to move but we only infer it, we haven't seen the cause.
That seems difficult to accept, because surely we know that the white ball has caused the red ball to move - and indeed we build laws of motion accordingly.
But then you see Saturday's sending off and all becomes clear. We *see* Woods head go toward Guthrie, we may *see* contact between Woods head and Guthrie's chest and we *see* Guthrie fall to the floor. The referee sees Guthrie fall to the floor and infers but doesn't see that the force of the contact has caused Guthrie to fall.
