Intuitively, you would think determining causation would be the most advantageous and when weighed by itself, there's really no reason to think otherwise. However, you have to examine the cost / benefit ratio of more factors than just "is this useful?" For starters, most organisms don't have the cognition to make deductions based upon empirical observations, so delegating their mental resources toward an ability that they don't have would actually be maladaptive and wasteful. In addition to the cost / benefit analysis of decision making itself, there's also the issue of sustaining that ability. The human brain consumes more energy than any other organ and satisfying the energy demands of the brain is quite costly indeed; more costly than many organisms can afford.That's interesting bmwg... hadn't really considered the argument for induction from an evolutionary perspective. While it seems plausible that assuming 'some' cause is more evolutionarily useful than assuming 'no' cause, determining an accurate 'most likely' cause, (while according sufficient weight to other possibilities based on their likelihood and consequences) has to be most evolutionarily useful
