<P> The second criticism centers around concerns of anthropocentrism . It seems to many people that causality is some existing relationship in the world that we can harness for our desires . If causality is identified with our manipulation, then this intuition is lost . In this sense, it makes humans overly central to interactions in the world . </P> <P> Some attempts to defend manipulability theories are recent accounts that don't claim to reduce causality to manipulation . These accounts use manipulation as a sign or feature in causation without claiming that manipulation is more fundamental than causation . </P> <P> Some theorists are interested in distinguishing between causal processes and non-causal processes (Russell 1948; Salmon 1984). These theorists often want to distinguish between a process and a pseudo-process . As an example, a ball moving through the air (a process) is contrasted with the motion of a shadow (a pseudo-process). The former is causal in nature while the latter is not . </P> <P> Salmon (1984) claims that causal processes can be identified by their ability to transmit an alteration over space and time . An alteration of the ball (a mark by a pen, perhaps) is carried with it as the ball goes through the air . On the other hand, an alteration of the shadow (insofar as it is possible) will not be transmitted by the shadow as it moves along . </P>

Who created the law of cause and effect