ABSTRACT
Whenwecometoexpressouranswerstothesetwoquestions,we mightwellhappentousecausallanguage,althoughinbothwemight alternativelychoosenon-causallanguage.2Whencausationisbeing discussedamonglawyersandscientists,abasicsourceofdifficultythey haveinunderstandingoneanotheristhat,whenscientistsusecausal languagetheyarealwayspursuingfacts,whetherthisisintheshapeofthe exhaustivehistoricalinquiryorintheshapeofamorefocusedinquiry.Ifa scientistknowsallthefactsofhowatransitioncameabout,heorshe wouldnotconsiderthattherewasanyroomforadisputelabelledasone aboutthe"causation"ofthetransition.Incontrast,whenlawyersusecausal language,theysometimesareapplyingittocaseswherethepartiesagree aboutallthefacts,buthaveneverthelessframedtheirdisputeasoneabout "causation".
