Difference between the Scientific Law of Causality and the Buddhist Law of Conditionality

The difference is that the law of causality is a general principle whereas paticcasamupadda is a special case of it's application.

Special because it's about something specific.

The law is like an abstract mathematic forumulae of xyz that can be applied to any calculation whereas dependent origination is more like doing physics where one uses the forumulae to think about certain circumstances substituting xyz for the real values of 123, special case not generalized.

Re. the first point.

There's a truism according to scientific logic, "correlation doesn't imply causation" -- i.e. that "if I do X and then Y happens" that doesn't mean that "X caused Y".

The answer to "what's the cause?" can become debatable in fields like sociology or politics.

Sometimes the question is important -- people don't want to spend money on changing a condition, if that condition doesn't cause the problem or if changing the condition will not solve the problem.

Sometimes the question is counter-productive -- people ask the question to raise doubt and argue against doing something useful.

And the question can be carried to great length -- people might argue about whether something is a proximate cause or a root cause.

I think that simple theories of "causation" also tend to imply a chronological sequence -- "if A caused B, then A happened before B" -- which isn't well-suited to answer questions about a perpetual cycle like for example, "Which came first, the chicken or the egg?"

I think that Buddhist doctrine explicitly avoids this controversy, by not always emphasizing a causal (or linear) sequence. Instead things "co-arise", they happen together.

That might be similar to a complex scientific view. Consider fire for example ...

• Does heat happen because it's burning inflammable gas?
• Or is it the other way around, i.e. that inflammable gas happens because of heat?

... and so far as I know, a scientific answer is "both" -- the latter being called "pyrolysis" (which precedes combustion). So the heat and the inflammable nature "co-arise" and once they start they continue.

A similar loop -- sometimes pathological -- might happen in psychology, "I drink because I'm unhappy and I'm unhappy because I drink", or the ways in which some enmities perpetuate.

But perhaps Buddhism doesn't try to argue about "Which came first?" -- may simply observe that they arise together, and might stop together.

I think this is so in the Noble Truths. The Second Truth is that craving is the origin of suffering, but I think the converse is true also i.e. that suffering causes craving (and so it perpetuates), what's clever is the Third Truth explaining how to stop the cycle.

I think it's also true in the analysis of the 12 nidanas -- I try to read the Wheel clockwise as if each causes the next, but I think that's simplistic -- there's two-way interaction or feedback especially between adjacent nidanas.

Science deals with the physically measurable. Buddhist teachings focus on the end of suffering. Both discuss causality, but in different ways.

The scientific method emphasizes reproducibility of results for a given hypothesis. In schools we can all drop large and small weights to observe they fall at the same speed. However, we have to be very very careful about using words such as "scientific law of causality". We have to be careful because scientific hypotheses change. In particular, Newton asserted that gravity is a force. Modern science asserts instead that mass bends space-time in such a way that falling objects move at the same rate. So there is no law of causality. Science is a simply a body of hypotheses that are verifiable under specified conditions. As we learn more, our hypotheses change. For example we still haven't figured out dark matter and dark energy. Science is our current best guess for the physically measurable.

In contrast, the Buddha taught about suffering, its origin and its end. With regard to suffering, the Buddha also discusses causality and views (i.e., hypotheses). Here, he discusses bad kamma arising out of bad actions.

MN60:24.7: So they give up their former ethical conduct and are established in unethical conduct.
MN60:24.8: And that is how wrong view gives rise to these many bad, unskillful qualities—wrong view, wrong thought, wrong speech, contradicting the noble ones, convincing others to accept untrue teachings, and glorifying oneself and putting others down.
MN60:25.1: A sensible person reflects on this matter in this way:
MN60:25.2: ‘If there is no causality, when this individual’s body breaks up they will keep themselves safe.
MN60:25.3: And if there is causality, when their body breaks up, after death, they will be reborn in a place of loss, a bad place, the underworld, hell.

Science relies on the reproducibility of physical measurement. Buddhism relies on the reproducibility of subjective measurement of suffering. Both science and Buddhism assert reproducibility of experience. However, science is not really concerned with the end of suffering. And Buddhism isn't really concerned with the rate of falling objects.