Understanding causality has always been central to the quest for knowledge about health and disease. From the philosophical inquiries of Aristotle to the precision of modern causal inference frameworks, our ideas about what causes disease and how to intervene have evolved through centuries of intellectual effort. This article traces that journey, highlighting key contributions from Aristotle, Al-Farabi, Robert Koch, Austin Bradford Hill, Ken Rothman, and Judea Pearl, and connects their ideas to modern medical practice.
Aristotle and the origins of causal thinking
Aristotle (384–322 BCE) introduced what is arguably the first formal framework for understanding causation. He proposed that to fully explain why something exists or happens, one must consider four types of causes: material, formal, efficient, and final causes.
The material cause is what something is made of. In medicine, this could refer to the tissues, cells, or substances involved in disease. The formal cause is the design or pattern that gives a thing its structure, comparable to the organisation of cells or the genetic blueprint of the body. The efficient cause is the agent or force that produces change. In health, this might be an infectious agent, injury, or environmental exposure. The final cause represents the purpose or goal. For Aristotle, everything in nature had an end or purpose, and in medical terms, this could be metaphorically linked to the goal of health or survival.
Aristotle’s framework laid the foundation for causal reasoning not only in natural science but also in ethics, politics, and medicine. His approach encouraged generations of thinkers to seek deep, structured explanations for the phenomena they observed.
Al-Farabi and the integration of causality into Islamic philosophy
Al-Farabi (872–950 CE), often called the Second Teacher after Aristotle, engaged deeply with Aristotle’s ideas and reinterpreted them through the lens of Islamic philosophy. Al-Farabi did not discard the Four Causes, but he gave them new meaning within a framework that aligned with tawhid, the concept of divine unity.
Al-Farabi argued that all efficient causes ultimately trace back to the First Cause, God. He extended Aristotle’s final cause beyond natural purposes to include divine wisdom and the moral purpose of human life. In Al-Farabi’s philosophy, causality was not simply a mechanical chain of events but a reflection of divine order and purpose.
His famous idea that human beings are madani bi al-tab‘i (social by nature) linked causality to the collective pursuit of well-being. In his vision of the Virtuous City (al-Madinah al-Fadilah), knowledge of causes guided not just individual health, but the health of the community and the moral responsibility to promote the common good.
Robert Koch and the birth of scientific causality in medicine
The modern scientific study of disease causation began with the work of Robert Koch (1843–1910). Koch introduced formal criteria, known as Koch’s postulates, for identifying the causal relationship between a microorganism and a disease.
Koch’s postulates required that the microorganism be found in every case of the disease, be isolatable in pure culture, cause the disease when introduced into a healthy host, and be re-isolated from the experimentally infected host. This approach transformed causality in medicine, especially in infectious diseases, from speculative reasoning to testable science.
Koch’s work exemplified the search for necessary causes in disease. His criteria worked well for infections like tuberculosis but less so for complex diseases that result from multiple interacting factors.
Austin Bradford Hill and the rise of multifactorial causality
By the mid-20th century, it had become clear that many diseases did not have single necessary causes. Chronic diseases like cancer, heart disease, and diabetes involved numerous risk factors. Austin Bradford Hill (1897–1991) addressed this complexity by proposing a set of considerations, now known as the Bradford Hill criteria, to help scientists judge whether an observed association is likely to be causal.
The criteria include strength of association, consistency, specificity, temporality, biological gradient, plausibility, coherence, experimental evidence, and analogy. These considerations reflect the complexity of disease causation and guide researchers in interpreting epidemiological data.
Hill’s approach helped move the focus from single necessary causes to component causes that contribute to sufficient causal mechanisms. This shift set the stage for modern causal models.
Ken Rothman and the component cause model
Ken Rothman (born 1945) further refined the understanding of disease causation by introducing the component cause model, often visualised as the causal pie model. This model describes how a disease can result from different combinations of factors, where each combination forms a sufficient cause.
In Rothman’s model, component causes represent individual factors (such as smoking, genetic susceptibility, or environmental exposure) that combine to complete a causal mechanism. No single component cause needs to be necessary or sufficient on its own. The model illustrates why many diseases cannot be attributed to a single factor and why prevention strategies must target multiple risk factors.
Rothman’s work has influenced generations of epidemiologists and public health professionals, providing a practical and visual tool to understand and teach multifactorial causation.
Judea Pearl and the ladder of causation
The most recent revolution in causality comes from Judea Pearl (born 1936), whose work has transformed causal inference into a formal, mathematical science. Pearl introduced causal diagrams, known as directed acyclic graphs (DAGs), and structural causal models to make causal relationships explicit and testable in data.
One of Pearl’s key contributions is the concept of the Ladder of Causation. The ladder describes three levels of causal reasoning. The first level is association, where one observes patterns in data. The second level is intervention, where one reasons about what happens if something is changed or manipulated. The third level is counterfactuals, where one asks what would have happened under different circumstances.
Pearl’s framework allows researchers to distinguish between mere correlation and true causation and to address complex issues such as confounding, mediation, and effect modification. His work is now central to fields ranging from epidemiology to artificial intelligence.
Causality in modern medicine
Understanding causality has practical implications in modern medicine. Few diseases today are thought to have single necessary and sufficient causes. Instead, most conditions arise from combinations of component causes that form sufficient causal mechanisms.
Take lung cancer as an example. Smoking is neither a necessary cause (because lung cancer can occur in non-smokers) nor a sufficient cause (because not all smokers develop lung cancer). However, smoking is a major component cause that contributes to sufficient causal mechanisms. Interventions that reduce smoking prevalence can prevent many cases of lung cancer, even if they do not eliminate the disease entirely.
Similarly, understanding that hypertension, high cholesterol, and physical inactivity are component causes of cardiovascular disease guides interventions that target these factors. The insights from causal reasoning help shape prevention strategies, clinical decisions, and public health policies.
From philosophy to practice
Tracing the journey of causality thinking from Aristotle to Pearl shows the progression from philosophical reflection to scientific precision. Aristotle’s Four Causes encouraged us to look for deeper reasons behind events. Al-Farabi integrated these ideas with a moral and social vision, reminding us that understanding causes should serve the common good. Koch’s postulates gave us tools to prove necessary causes in infectious diseases. Bradford Hill’s criteria helped navigate the complexity of chronic disease causation. Rothman’s component cause model illustrated the multifactorial nature of disease. Pearl’s ladder of causation and causal models now give us the tools to analyse and act on causal relationships in complex systems.
Together, these frameworks have helped medicine move beyond treating symptoms to addressing root causes. They also remind us that understanding causality is not only about explaining disease but also about guiding interventions that promote health and well-being.
References
Hill, A. B. (1965). The environment and disease: Association or causation? Proceedings of the Royal Society of Medicine, 58(5), 295–300.
Koch, R. (1884). Die aetiologie der tuberkulose. Berliner Klinische Wochenschrift, 21, 221–230.
Pearl, J. (2018). The book of why: The new science of cause and effect. Basic Books.
Rothman, K. J., Greenland, S., & Lash, T. L. (2008). Modern epidemiology (3rd ed.). Lippincott Williams & Wilkins.
VanderWeele, T. J. (2015). Explanation in causal inference: Methods for mediation and interaction. Oxford University Press.