M6:2212 — مشت بر اعمی زند یک جلف مست / کور پندارد لگدزن اشترست

Translation: A boorish drunkard punches a blind man; The blind man assumes the kicker is a camel.

Meaning: This verse illustrates how the incomplete perception of reality, due to sensory limitations, leads one to mistakenly identify the cause of an event; the blind man, unable to see the actual assailant (the drunkard), wrongly attributes the blow to the camel, solely because its bray coincided with the impact.

This couplet is a masterpiece in articulating a profound epistemological problem: the confusion of correlation with causation. Rumi, with extraordinary astuteness, sketches a scenario where the error in identifying the cause stems not from carelessness, but from the very limitation of the sensory apparatus.

I have frequently cited this example from Rumi in my philosophy of science classes. Aristotle famously stated, "Whoever loses a sense, loses a branch of knowledge." Here, the blind man has lost his sight. His ear has become his "mirror," yet this mirror reflects only sounds, not images or visual causes. The boorish, drunken assailant is the true cause of the blow; he approaches silently and invisibly to kick. Simultaneously, a camel brays nearby. The blind man, who neither sees the drunkard nor comprehends his intent, mistakenly concludes, based solely on the simultaneity and concomitance of the two events (receiving a kick and hearing the camel's bray), that the camel is the culprit. He considers only the audible and perceptible causes at hand, entirely excluding the inaudible and invisible ones from his calculations.

This error of confusing correlation and causation has occurred even in the natural sciences. A clear example is lightning and thunder. Lightning always appears before thunder, but this does not mean lightning causes thunder; both are effects of a single electrical phenomenon in the atmosphere. To assume lightning causes thunder is precisely the blind man's error of deeming the camel the cause of the kick.

However, this problem is far more serious and perilous in social and psychological matters. In nature, there is no intention, deceit, truth, or falsehood, making scientific analyses simpler. But in the human realm, which is a multi-layered and complex entity, identifying true causes within the labyrinth of intentions, beliefs, and hidden contexts becomes exceedingly difficult. For instance, in the analysis of revolutions, how many theories have mistaken correlated factors for primary causes, neglecting the true underlying forces? Similar examples exist in the history of medical science; before the discovery of the parathyroid gland, many ailments were attributed solely to the thyroid gland because the parathyroid was small, adjacent, and overlooked.

Undoubtedly, Rumi, with this simple yet profound example, pinpoints one of the most fundamental difficulties in human knowledge. In Western philosophy, Hume, by rejecting induction, demonstrated that through experience we merely perceive the succession and concomitance of phenomena, not a necessary causal link. It was Hume's discovery that awoke Kant from his "dogmatic slumber." This indicates that Rumi, though seemingly not engaged with nature or science and having his gaze fixed on the higher realms, possessed a keen observation and subtlety that, had he pursued science, would have undoubtedly made him one of the greatest methodologists and philosophers of science. This verse is a testament to Rumi's profound insight into the structure of knowledge and the limitations of human perception.

Key takeaways

• Confusion of Correlation and Causation: This verse serves as a fundamental warning against mistaking concomitance for a necessary causal relationship.
• Limitations of Sensory Perception: The absence of a sense (sight) renders a full grasp of reality and the identification of true causes impossible (echoing Aristotle's view).
• Complexity of Causation in Human Affairs: Identifying real causes in social and psychological matters is significantly harder than in natural sciences due to hidden layers and intentions.
• Rumi's Epistemological Acuity: This analogy demonstrates Rumi's profound sharpness and intelligence in understanding the structure of errors and the limitations of human knowledge.
• Implicit Critique of Scientific Methodology: Even with scientific advancements, the risk of falling into the trap of judging solely by correlations persists.