|
|
Line 5: |
Line 5: |
| {{Navbox}} | | {{Navbox}} |
|
| |
|
| == Useful Links == | | == The Lesson in Context == |
|
| |
|
| * [https://docs.google.com/document/d/1e3FfImFu0m2o1xFbPGgeD3RXkySiyBxAZjjuKn4Px9A/edit?usp=sharing Three Column Overview of the Week]
| | <!-- Always begin section with a description of this lesson in relation to the course as a whole. --> |
| * [https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/11zzvYH2bs44zS-pHO1EjslyXwXe5R0QtiGHoUmVYMNU/edit?usp=drivesdk Lesson Slides (2023 Master)]
| | This course has so far only discussed general causation, which can be demonstrated through randomized controlled trials and to a weaker extent Hill's criteria. But personal, policy, and legal decisions often depend on singular causation as well. It also sometimes matters whether the causation is by commission or by omission. The famous Trolley dilemma is discussed. |
| * [https://sensesensibilityscience.berkeley.edu/topic/8 Website Page]
| |
|
| |
|
| === Readings and Assignments ===
| | <!-- Expandable section relating this lesson to earlier lessons. --> |
| | {{Expand|Relation to Earlier Lessons| |
| | {{ContextLesson|6.1 Correlation and Causation}} |
| | {{ContextRelation|RCTs only demonstrate general causation but not singular causation. Correlation is also a statistical relationship between two variables, rather than between two singular events.}} |
| | {{ContextLesson|6.2 Hill's Criteria}} |
| | {{ContextRelation|As a substitute for RCTs, Hill's criteria also only demonstrate general causation, but can be used in some cases as partial evidence for singular causation (especially plausible mechanism and temporal sequence).}} |
| | }} |
| | <!-- Expandable section relating this lesson to later lessons. --> |
| | {{Expand|Relation to Later Lessons| |
| | {{ContextLesson|8.1 Orders of Understanding}} |
| | {{ContextRelation|Any given effect is brought about by a complex combination of many causes (which may interact with each other), with varying degrees of influence on the outcome. This is true for both singular and general causation.}} |
| | {{ContextLesson|9.2 Biases}} |
| | {{ContextRelation|The omission bias is one explanation for the status quo bias, in that humans tend to prefer not actively changing the current situation or trend, even when it may be worse than the potential pitfalls of the new outcome.}} |
| | }} |
|
| |
|
| ==== Lecture Video ==== | | == Takeaways == |
|
| |
|
| <youtube>https://youtu.be/sWFCyxmZIpM</youtube> | | <tabber> |
|
| |
|
| == Learning Goals ==
| | |-|Learning Goals= |
|
| |
|
| After this lesson, students should | | After this lesson, students should |
| | <!-- Learning goals are written as a numbered list. --> |
| # Distinguish between singular and general causation. | | # Distinguish between singular and general causation. |
| # Distinguish between the evidence needed to establish singular or general causation. | | # Distinguish between the evidence needed to establish singular or general causation. |
Line 25: |
Line 38: |
| # Recognize cases where omission bias and status quo bias can influence decision making, even when this results in a worse outcome. | | # Recognize cases where omission bias and status quo bias can influence decision making, even when this results in a worse outcome. |
|
| |
|
| === Definitions ===
| | |-|Definitions= |
|
| |
|
| * '''Singular Causation'''
| | <!-- Definitions must be written with the Definition and Subdefinition templates. The first Definition should have the "first=yes" flag at the end. --> |
| *: A causal relation between two specific events; ''A'' caused ''B''.
| | {{Definition|Singular Causation|A causal relation between two specific events; ''A'' caused ''B''.|first=yes}} |
| * '''General Causation'''
| | {{Definition|General Causation|A causal relation between two variables; ''X'' causes ''Y''.}} |
| *: A causal relation between two variables; ''X'' causes ''Y''.
| | {{Definition|Omission Bias|Omission bias is the tendency to favor an act of omission (inaction) over one of commission (action).}} |
| * '''Omission Bias'''
| | {{Definition|Status Quo Bias|A preference for the maintenance of a current or previous state of affairs ("status quo" is Latin for "state in which"), or a preference to not undertake any action to change this current or previous state.}} |
| *: Omission bias is the tendency to favor an act of omission (inaction) over one of commission (action).
| | <br /> |
| * '''Status Quo Bias'''
| |
| *: A preference for the maintenance of a current or previous state of affairs ("status quo" is Latin for "state in which"), or a preference to not undertake any action to change this current or previous state.
| |
|
| |
|
| === Examples ===
| | |-|Examples= |
|
| |
|
| * A randomized controlled trial for a drug may demonstrate its general therapeutic effect (general causation), e.g. taking this drug reduces the risks of this disease, but it cannot conclusively demonstrate a causal connection in any particular instance of a patient taking this drug (singular causation).
| | <!-- Example formatting is still experimental. --> |
| * One can claim that climate change causes extreme weather events (general causation), but not that any particular instance of wildfire was caused by climate change (singular causation).
| | '''Drug Trials''' |
| | : A randomized controlled trial for a drug may demonstrate its general therapeutic effect (general causation), e.g. taking this drug reduces the risks of this disease, but it cannot conclusively demonstrate a causal connection in any particular instance of a patient taking this drug (singular causation). |
| | {{Line}} |
| | '''Weather and Climate Change''' |
| | : One can claim that climate change causes extreme weather events (general causation), but not that any particular instance of wildfire was caused by climate change (singular causation). |
|
| |
|
| === Common Misconceptions ===
| | |-|Common Misconceptions= |
|
| |
|
| * Some students think that an RCT can demonstrate singular causation, whereas in fact it can only establish general causation.
| | <!-- Misconceptions must be written with the Misconception template. The first Misconception should have the "first=yes" flag at the end. --> |
| | {{Misconception|This drug will absolutely cure you, because there was a really big RCT that showed it works for your exact disease!|RCTs can only establish singular causation.|first=yes}} |
|
| |
|
| == Context ==
| | </tabber> |
|
| |
|
| This course has so far only discussed general causation, which can be demonstrated through randomized controlled trials and to a weaker extent Hill's criteria. But personal, policy, and legal decisions often depend on singular causation as well. It also sometimes matters whether the causation is by commission or by omission. The famous Trolley dilemma is discussed.
| | == Useful Resources == |
| | |
| | <tabber> |
| | |
| | |-|Lecture Video= |
|
| |
|
| === Before ===
| | <br /><center><youtube>sWFCyxmZIpM</youtube></center> |
|
| |
|
| : '''[[6.1 Correlation and Causation]]'''
| | |-|Discussion Slides= |
| :: RCTs only demonstrate general causation but not singular causation. Correlation is also a statistical relationship between two variables, rather than between two singular events.
| |
| : '''[[6.2 Hill's Criteria]]'''
| |
| :: As a substitute for RCTs, Hill's criteria also only demonstrate general causation, but can be used in some cases as partial evidence for singular causation (especially plausible mechanism and temporal sequence).
| |
|
| |
|
| === After === | | {{LinkCard |
| | |url=https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/11zzvYH2bs44zS-pHO1EjslyXwXe5R0QtiGHoUmVYMNU/ |
| | |title=Discussion Slides Template |
| | |description=The discussion slides for this lesson. |
| | }} |
| | <br /> |
|
| |
|
| : '''[[8.1 Orders of Understanding]]'''
| | </tabber> |
| :: Any given effect is brought about by a complex combination of many causes (which may interact with each other), with varying degrees of influence on the outcome. This is true for both singular and general causation.
| |
| : '''[[9.2 Biases]]'''
| |
| :: The omission bias is one explanation for the status quo bias, in that humans tend to prefer not actively changing the current situation or trend, even when it may be worse than the potential pitfalls of the new outcome.
| |
|
| |
|
| == Recommended Outline == | | == Recommended Outline == |
|
| |
|
| === Before Class === | | === During Class === |
| | |
| | {| class="wikitable" style="margin-left: 0px; margin-right: auto;" |
| | |5 Minutes |
| | |Introduce the lesson and go over the plan for the day. Make sure people have groups, spokespeople, etc. |
| | |- |
| | |35 Minutes |
| | |Guide the students through the [[#Singular and General Causation Discussion Questions|singular and general causation discussion questions]]. |
| | |- |
| | |15 Minutes |
| | |Discuss the [[#Trolley Problem|trolley problem]] example. |
| | |- |
| | |25 Minutes |
| | |Go through the [[#Life Saving Treatments|life saving treatments]] discussion. |
| | |} |
| | |
| | == Lesson Content == |
| | |
| | === Singular and General Causation Discussion Questions === |
| | |
| | Have your students discuss the following questions in small groups. Each question and sub-question should take around five minutes. |
|
| |
|
| * Review PlayPosit and discussion questions and ask faculty, Gabriel, or Emlen any questions you have.
| | ==== Question 1 ==== |
| * (Optional) Prepare a presentation.
| |
|
| |
|
| === During Class === | | Which kind of causation can an RCT establish? |
| | {{BoxAnswer|General causation. The purpose of an RCT is to average away all the nuances that arise from the singular cases of the individuals in the trial.}} |
| | ==== Question 2 ==== |
| | |
| | Suppose we conduct an RCT that determines salt causes heart disease. Suppose Sally is in our study, has a high level of salt, and contracts heart disease. Did Sally's salt intake cause her heart disease? |
| | {{BoxAnswer|It's impossible to say for sure. All we really know is that Sally was more likely to develop heart disease than someone with less salt intake. In this way the trial is suggestive that the salt intake played some role in causing her heart disease. But, that's all our trial tells us.}} |
| | ==== Question 3 ==== |
|
| |
|
| * (5 min) Come up with some fun way to assign the roles of spokesperson and notetaker (e.g. earliest birthday in the year, lives furthest from campus). Remind them of the responsibilities of these roles.
| | On January 4, 2022, a federal inquiry into the Dixie Fire of August 2021, the second largest wildfire in California history, determined the wildfire began when a tree came in contact with a power line operated by PG&E. |
| * (35 min) Guide the students through the [[#Singular and General Causation Discussion Questions|singular and general causation discussion questions]].
| |
| * (15 min) Discuss the [[#Trolley Problem|trolley problem]] example.
| |
| * (25 min) Go through the [[#Life Saving Treatments|life saving treatments]] discussion.
| |
|
| |
|
| === After Class === | | ===== Sub-question 3a ===== |
|
| |
|
| * Collect answers from notetakers for the forum / plenary.
| | Is this a statement of singular or general causation? |
| | {{BoxAnswer|Singular causation.}} |
| | ===== Sub-question 3b ===== |
|
| |
|
| == Lesson Content == | | It is well established that climate change increases the number and intensity of wildfires in California. Given this known fact, why did the federal investigation not immediately conclude that climate change was the cause? |
| | {{BoxAnswer|Although climate change tends to result in worse wildfire seasons, it has to do this via some mechanism. It can lead to hotter weather and drier foliage. This doesn't cause fires directly but increases the likelihood that other things that tend to start fires actually end up doing so. Identifying which mechanism was the singular cause of this fire can help us find additional general causes (such as uncleared foliage and unmaintained infrastructure) that work in conjunction with climate change.}} |
| | ===== Sub-question 3c ===== |
|
| |
|
| === Singular and General Causation Discussion Questions === | | PG&E has faced criminal charges from multiple California counties for the role of its equipment in causing wildfires. When determining guilt or innocence, does the legal system typically focus on singular or general causation? |
| | {{BoxAnswer|The legal system typically punishes acts of singular causation. However, this is done with the intent of discouraging future acts. In this way, it acts generally as well. Class action suits can involve general causation, as when a toxin causes cancer in some but not all people exposed.}} |
| | ===== Sub-question 3d ===== |
|
| |
|
| In small groups, have students discuss the following questions:
| | Assume you're in charge of creating policy to prevent California wildfires like the Dixie Fire from happening in the future. What are some policies that might have prevented the Dixie Fire? Does policy making typically focus on singular or general causation? |
| # Which kind of causation can an RCT establish?
| | {{BoxAnswer|Policies to address climate change and increase infrastructure standards would help prevent cases like the Dixie Fire. These focus on general causation. Even policies that increase the punishment for having roles in starting fires are ultimately addressing general causation as well, since they aim to have a broad impact.}} |
| #: {{Answer|General causation. The purpose of an RCT is to average away all the nuances that arise from the singular cases of the individuals in the trial.}}
| | ==== Question 4 ==== |
| # Suppose we conduct an RCT that determines salt causes heart disease. Suppose Sally is in our study, has a high level of salt, and contracts heart disease. Did Sally's salt intake cause her heart disease?
| |
| #: {{Answer|It's impossible to say for sure. All we really know is that Sally was more likely to develop heart disease than someone with less salt intake. In this way the trial is suggestive that the salt intake played some role in causing her heart disease. But, that's all our trial tells us.}}
| |
| # On January 4, 2022, a federal inquiry into the Dixie Fire of August 2021, the second largest wildfire in California history, determined the wildfire began when a tree came in contact with a power line operated by PG&E.
| |
| ## Is this a statement of singular or general causation?
| |
| ##: {{Answer|Singular causation.}}
| |
| ## It is well established that climate change increases the number and intensity of wildfires in California. Given this known fact, why did the federal investigation not immediately conclude that climate change was the cause?
| |
| ##: {{Answer|Although climate change tends to result in worse wildfire seasons, it has to do this via some mechanism. It can lead to hotter weather and drier foliage. This doesn't cause fires directly but increases the likelihood that other things that tend to start fires actually end up doing so. Identifying which mechanism was the singular cause of this fire can help us find additional general causes (such as uncleared foliage and unmaintained infrastructure) that work in conjunction with climate change.}}
| |
| ## PG&E has faced criminal charges from multiple California counties for the role of its equipment in causing wildfires. When determining guilt or innocence, does the legal system typically focus on singular or general causation?
| |
| ##: {{Answer|The legal system typically punishes acts of singular causation. However, this is done with the intent of discouraging future acts. In this way, it acts generally as well. Class action suits can involve general causation, as when a toxin causes cancer in some but not all people exposed.}}
| |
| ## Assume you're in charge of creating policy to prevent California wildfires like the Dixie Fire from happening in the future. What are some policies that might have prevented the Dixie Fire? Does policy making typically focus on singular or general causation?
| |
| ##: {{Answer|Policies to address climate change and increase infrastructure standards would help prevent cases like the Dixie Fire. These focus on general causation. Even policies that increase the punishment for having roles in starting fires are ultimately addressing general causation as well, since they aim to have a broad impact.}}
| |
| # Why do you think it is so tempting to assume that each event has a singular person or entity to blame? When is this useful or not useful?
| |
| #: {{Answer|One possible reason is that it's much easier to think about and deal with singular entities because it's simpler to intervene on one entity than on many. Additionally, we tend to over perceive the effects of individual agents, which are singular factors. This could be because they are more important to notice in the short term. For example, it is more important to notice an enemy that tripped you than a series of small factors that led to you being tripped. And, as previously noted, the former is easier to act on.}}
| |
|
| |
|
| | Why do you think it is so tempting to assume that each event has a singular person or entity to blame? When is this useful or not useful? |
| | {{BoxAnswer|One possible reason is that it's much easier to think about and deal with singular entities because it's simpler to intervene on one entity than on many. Additionally, we tend to over perceive the effects of individual agents, which are singular factors. This could be because they are more important to notice in the short term. For example, it is more important to notice an enemy that tripped you than a series of small factors that led to you being tripped. And, as previously noted, the former is easier to act on.}} |
| === Commission and Omission Discussion Questions === | | === Commission and Omission Discussion Questions === |
|
| |
|
Line 109: |
Line 145: |
|
| |
|
| If you deem it appropriate, you can show [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JWb_svTrcOg this clip] from the show ''The Good Place''. | | If you deem it appropriate, you can show [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JWb_svTrcOg this clip] from the show ''The Good Place''. |
| {{Caution|The clip has some violence and gore. Make sure to provide a disclaimer before showing it.|right=small}} | | {{BoxCaution|The clip has some violence and gore. You may want to provide a disclaimer before showing it.}} |
| | |
| In small groups, have students discuss the following questions: | | In small groups, have students discuss the following questions: |
| # Would you pull the lever to shift the trolley from the track with five people to the track with one (assuming whoever is on the track will be crushed)? 👀 | | # Would you pull the lever? 👀 |
| # Are you causing the death of 1 person if you do pull the lever? | | # Are you causing the death of 1 person if you do pull the lever? |
| # Are you causing the death of 5 people if you don't pull the lever? | | # Are you causing the death of 5 people if you don't pull the lever? |
Line 131: |
Line 166: |
| # Show of hands: Would you give this vaccine to your child? | | # Show of hands: Would you give this vaccine to your child? |
| # Show of hands: Would you authorize the distribution of this vaccine if you were the FDA? | | # Show of hands: Would you authorize the distribution of this vaccine if you were the FDA? |
| # What's the largest number of deaths from the vaccine that you would tolerate and still give it to your child? (0, 1, 100, 1 thousand, 10 thousand, 100 thousand, 1 million, above 1 million) Authorize if you were the FDA?{{Caution|This last question could be in a Google Form, so that the distribution of numbers over the entire class can be presented in the plenary.}} | | # What's the largest number of deaths from the vaccine that you would tolerate and still give it to your child? (0, 1, 100, 1 thousand, 10 thousand, 100 thousand, 1 million, above 1 million) Authorize if you were the FDA? |
| | | {{BoxCaution|This last question could be in a Google Form, so that the distribution of numbers over the entire class can be presented in the plenary.}}{{NavCard|prev=[Previous Lesson]|next=[Next Lesson]}} |
| {{NavCard|prev=6.2 Hill's Criteria|next=7.2 Emergent Phenomena}} | | <includeonly>[[Category:Lesson plans]]</includeonly> |
| [[Category:Lesson plans]] | |