Two examples to follow:
Correlation vs. Causation
To really get a handle on their distinction you need to critically analyze under what circumstances one individual observer can feel reasonably certain about getting the maximum of truth content possible at a given moment while responding to a sudden new or familiar sensory stimulus and making a corresponding adaptive decision in your daily life. When you, at leisure, meditate about it, then you realize that the response effort is equivalent to distinguishing between contingent vs. absolute truth.
Thus, you realize that you cannot always perceptually describe things as they are or cannot always conceptually explain as they logically make sense and appear to be because uncertainty influences your judgment. But one thing we can always do with certainty and that is to express how, when or where the ‘what’ (object/event) is happening AS IF the occurrence is the absolute truth in that given moment. Consequently we can always, only explain things not as they are or logically are but always as WE are. What ‘we are’ determines the most important aspect of living which is to stay alive so we can satisfy our survival biological imperative to continue living as a species beyond the conclusion of our individualized life cycles ‘per secula secolorum’, across generations. Once human species survival is genetically committed and epigenetically sustained at subconscious levels of reflex biopsychosocial BPS performance then we arrive at the next higher order of adaptive conscious behavior still strongly influenced by BPS survival imperatives. Once we situate the living human being, with all his/her limitations in perception and cognition as amply discussed, then it is a lot easier to understand the differences between correlation and causation.
Phenomenal causation depends on perceptual identification of a physical mass (m) moving or accelerating (a) under the influence of a causally efficient force (f) as conceptually represented as f=ma. But there are physical mass particles beyond sensory resolution that may consistently cause particular sensory effects (broken glass window and strong, moist southerly winds). This scenario co-relates two or more sensory discernible events with a degree of certainty but gets more difficult to ascertain the true undetectable, causally efficient agent, . Etymologically two sides of same coin are inseparably, consistently and unavoidably related, i.e., they constitute a co-relation = correlation where the true, direct non-observable agents of causation may remain indiscernible for human’s sensory threshold. The reader may have noticed that even when an observable cause-effect is experienced by all, always, there may be intervening indiscernibles beyond human brain resolution threshold. Hope this helps a little.
Are animals moral?
Patricia Churchland, et al: “…..us back to the original Darwinian position that moral behavior is continuous with the social behavior of animals, and most likely evolved to enhance the cooperativeness of society. In this view, morality is part of human nature rather than its opposite……”
Angell: I am sure some here will continue to argue that animals are conscious and have ‘moral’ attributions. And I will continue to single out the need to have inherited a primitive Chomskian (New Horizons in the Study of Language and Mind.) language machinery that allowed for an introspective attainment of the self-conscious stage during early childhood. According to Piaget (Development of Thought), it made possible the distinction between ‘I’ and the ‘other’. I have argued that Darwinian Evolution was conceptually necessary but not sufficient to explain human evolution into the ideal moral/ethical creature that Kant (Critique of Practical Reason) had in mind. This reasoning is along the same lines that Teilhardt de Chardin, Bergson and others had. It was never meant an attribution of subhuman species like Churchland apparently pretends now. A subhuman behavior that appears ‘moral’ is essentially a subconscious reflex act in defense of a biopsychosocial BPS strategy for species survival. Rousseau’s (The Social Contract) thesis than man is born moral and society corrupts him is an anachronism as brain and sociology results have sustained. We humans begin to humanize when the first order self-conscious state is attained, however primitive, as amply discussed before. The escape from the BPS stage we share with sub humans is the beginning of human hood as detailed elsewhere. It is an ongoing process influenced by genetic and acquired environmental circumstances.