logic is cause and effect

Firstly, I would like to clarify what logic is. It is the study of the principles of correct reasoning. (1) For the purposes of this debate, I will be using the conditional operator -> in sentential logic as my primary exmaple. I will show that the nature of causation is based on our instincts and cannot be predicted by logic. Logic is not cause and effect. I will show that a) cause and effect are psychological phenomena based on force dynamics, rather than grounded in logic and b) cause and effect have no logical equivalence. I will show, after Pinker (2007), using several examples. Example 1: Causes vs conditionsCause seems to have no consistent definition. For example, what causes a statue to be weathered? Our intuitive answer is the rain, but there are other necessary conditions to this chemical process: The presence of acids in the rain, sufficiently hot climatic conditions, that the statue is made of a soluble or non-resistant material, and so on. The absence of one factor means the statue will not rust, yet we still think of rusting as the causation. In sentential logic, if all these are necessary conditions, we would formalise this as: Result -> Necessary condition. For example:Rain -> Acids in the rainRain -> Hot climateRain -> Statue is made of soluble materialsand so on. This is contrary to our normal conception of causation (that rain causes the statue to erode). Similary, we do not consider my birth to be the cause of my engagement in this debate, even though the former is a necessary condition of the latter. Nor is the fact that the colonial government lacked local government officials the cause of me sitting at the library at the moment, even though if the first had not happened, my university would not have been established, and there would be no library for me to sit in. Now imagine an alternative universe where I was not originally born. Airmax decides it would be fun to see me engaging in this debate, so he gets in a time machine and tells my parents to give birth to me just so I can engage in this debate. In this situation, my birth would be the cause of my engagement in this debate. This shows us the inconsistency in the definition of causation. Thus, the logical notion of conditions is distinct from our instinctive notion of cause and effect. Example 2: TransitivityCausation is often transitive. Slavic nationalism caused the assassination of Archduke Ferdinand, which in turn caused the Austria-Hungary to attack Serbia. So Slavic nationalism caused Austria-Hungary to attack Serbia. Yet conditions are not. If I had not been born, I would not be studying at university. If I were not studying at university, I would be working. But you can't say that if I had not been born, I would be working. Example 3: Overdetermination and preemptionOverdetermination is when multiple sufficient conditions for a situation are all satisfied. Let's say a tornado and a tsunami hit a building at the same time. Each one would be sufficient for its destruction alone, so if there had been no tornado, the house would have been destroyed by the tsunami and vice versa. So neither are necessary conditions. Yet we say that both of them caused the house to collapse. Preemption is a similar example. Let's say one ball is rolling towards a stationary ball. John uses his hand to stop the moving ball, but in doing so slopes the table slightly, causing the stationary ball to move anyway. Is the movement of the moving ball or John the cause? Most people would say John is the cause, and a handful will say both are the causes, but neither are necesary conditions as the absence of one condition does not mean the ball will not move. The nature of causationAs we can see from the above examples, the nature of causation is very muddy and seems to be based on human instincts, not grounded in logic. Sometimes, there are even contradicting views on what is the cause and what is the effect. In fact, Rusell wrote, 'The law of causation . .. is a relic of a bygone age, surviving like the monarchy, only because it is supposed to do no harm. 'According to Leo Talmy, causation is based on force dynamics. We construe causation using the concepts of agonist and antagonist. The agonist has an intrinsic tendency to move or rest. An antagonist exerts some sort force on the agonist which, when greater than the agonist's intrinsic tendency, causes movement. All causation is considered like tihs. For example, in my weathering example, the statue is the agonist and the rain the antagonist. The other conditions are not considered in the equation because they are neither agonist nor antagonist. This has to do with the intuitive physics in human cognition. Experimental psychology has corrorborated Talmy's semantic claims. Clare Walsh and Steven Sloman told volunteers that a coin was perched on the edge, on the brink of falling over. In the first scenario, the coin was going to fall tails, but Bill flipped the direction by rolling a marble there, making it land on heads. In the second scenario, the coin was going to land heads, and Bill again tried to roll a marble there. A book blocked the path of the marble, but Frank removed it, allowing it to land on tails. Logically speaking, in the first scenario, Bill's marble was a necessary condition of the coin landing on heads, and Frank's action in the second scenario was a necessary condition of the coin landing on tails. Yet people don't say Frank's action was a cause, whereas they do think Bill's marble was a cause. (4)It should be overwhelmingly clear from this experiment that cause and effect is based not on logic but on force-dynamic intuition. Principles of logic unrelated to cause and effectSome principles of logic, on the contrary, have nothing to do with cause and effect. Consider this sequent: A -> B, A |= B. It is valid, but often has nothing to do with cause and effect. For example, consider this translation scheme:A: I am a boy. B: I am maleThe premises, conclusion and sequent are all valid. Yet my status as a boy doesn't cause my gender. It simply entals it. I have effectively shown a 'double disassociation': cause and effect that doesn't depend on logic, and logic that doesn't depend on cause and effect. ConclusionI have shown from these examples that cause and effect cannot be equated with logic. (1) . http://philosophy.hku.hk...(2) Pinker, S. (2007). The stuff of thought: Language as a window into human nature. Penguin. (This source contributes most of the material in my argument; uncited arguments mostly are drawn from the source, though with different exmaples. )(3) . https://philosophymodsquad.wordpress.com...;(4) . https://books.google.com.hk...;