Introduction

In a previous post we explained why primary and secondary causes switch places across a system boundary.

To recap, by example:

The Pedestrian and the Car

The Event

A man steps off the sidewalk (pavement) and is hit by a car on the road. At first glance, this seems like a straightforward incident. But was the primary cause (the main reason it happened) that the man left the pavement? Or was it that the car didn’t stop?

Pavement (Human-Centric) Perspective

Primary Cause: The man left the pavement—his protected space.
Secondary Cause: He was struck by a car.
Event Explanation: The man was run over because he stepped off the pavement without looking.

From a pedestrian-focused system, the pavement is designed for people’s safety. The moment the man steps off into the roadway, he’s left the system that’s meant to protect him. In that view, his action (stepping off the curb) is the key event that led to the accident.

Road (Car-Centric) Perspective

Primary Cause: A physical object (the man) appeared in front of a moving car.
Secondary Cause: He got there by stepping off the pavement.
Event Explanation: The man was run over because he was standing in the way of a car which was unable to stop in time.

From a vehicle-focused system, the road is built to help cars move freely and efficiently. Anything on the road that isn’t a car—be it a stray object, an animal, or a person—risks getting hit if it appears suddenly. The driver sees the immediate cause as “There was someone in my path,” while the reason that person got there feels secondary.

Why the Cause “Switches”

If you’ve never thought about it this way, it might sound like we’re contradicting ourselves. Which is it—did the man cause the accident by leaving the curb, or did the car cause it by not stopping? Systems thinking tells us it can be both, depending on which system’s purpose and boundaries you focus on:

Boundaries: Who “belongs” here?
- On the pavement, pedestrians belong. On the road, cars belong.
Purpose: What is this system designed for?
- The pavement is there to keep walkers safe. The road is designed for car travel.
Assumptions:
- Pavement mindset: “Stay here, and you’re safe.”
- Road mindset: “Cars won’t stop unless forced to—by traffic lights, or if they see a clear obstacle.”

These different viewpoints explain why each side labels something else as the “primary cause.”

Interestingly, we can reverse this argument, to provide of cogency (i.e. to test if an argument or explanation “makes sense”), as follows:

Reversal Premise: An argument or exposition regarding a systemic event* is cogent if, and only if, it can be reformulated in such a way that what one system designates as the “primary cause” (of an event) can be redescribed as the “secondary cause” from another system’s perspective—and vice versa—without the overall explanation collapsing into contradiction.

*Note: A “systemic event” is defined here as an event that relates to the essential functioning of the systems within which it occurs.

This means to say that we can execute the following logical train of thought, to prove whether or not an argument or explanation is cogent (or “makes sense”):

Identify the system from whose perspective the argument or explanation is stated.
Identify the incidental system, interaction with which generated the event under consideration.
State the argument or explanation from the perspective of the incidental system.
Check if primary cause and secondary cause are reversed in the arguments or explanations stated from the perspectives of both systems.
If primary and secondary causes are inverted then the argument or explanation is valid.
If primary and secondary causes are not inverted, or it is not possible to state the argument or explanation altogether from the perspective of the incidental system, then the argument or explanation is not valid.

Passing this Reversal Test does not prove that the argument is absolutely correct in any ultimate sense, but rather that it is robust or well-formed (cogent) insofar as it can accommodate more than one legitimate vantage point.

Reversal Test: Philosophical Terminology

Using philosophical terminology, we can state the Reversal Test hypothesis as follows:

Hypothesis

If an argument about a systemic event is truly cogent, then it should exhibit “transpositional symmetry” in cause–effect attribution when viewed from each relevant system’s boundary perspective.

In simpler terms; if the argument is robust, it can be rephrased such that the primary cause (from system X) can become the secondary cause (in system Y)—and still present a noncontradictory account.

Method

Epistemological Vantage-Point Analysis: Identify each relevant system (road/pavement, finance/project, software OS/application, etc.) and label its boundary conditions and purposes.
Hermeneutic “Flipping”: Rewrite the explanation from each system’s vantage point, flipping the “primary” and “secondary” cause, observing whether the explanation remains self-consistent.
Criteria of Success:

- Internal Consistency: Does the argument hold up logically in each vantage?

- Cross-Consistency: Do these vantage points fit together into an overarching whole, without irreconcilable conflict?

Hypothesis Description

In philosophical terms, we can call the Reversal Test, a test of intersubjective coherence or dialectical consistency, that provides hermeneutic comprehensiveness.

This means as follows:

Dialectical Consistency: The argument survives scrutiny from multiple standpoints (system A vs. system B).
Intersubjective Coherence: We show that neither vantage point is dismissed outright; both perspectives are given their due explanatory power.
Hermeneutic Comprehensiveness: By switching the focus of “what’s inside” vs. “what’s outside” each system, we reveal a well-rounded narrative that accounts for competing or complementary claims about cause and effect.

The Reversal Test underscores that a truly cogent explanation can handle the shift of boundary assumptions (who or what is considered “insider” vs. “outsider”) without losing logical coherence.

This is not a demonstration of absolute “truth” (in the Correspondence Theory of Truth sense) but rather a demonstration of coherence (in the Coherence Theory of Truth sense). It shows that the argument is well-structured and “makes sense” under each system’s legitimate assumptions.

Examples of Valid vs. Invalid Explanations

Below are scenarios illustrating how the ability—or inability—to switch primary and secondary causes from different systemic perspectives can either confirm or undermine the cogency of an argument.

Valid Argument: Pedestrian & Car

System A (Pedestrian/Pavement):

- Primary cause: The man stepped off the pavement (breach of safety zone).
- Secondary cause: The car failed to stop (an external factor, but not the initial “inside” cause).

System B (Driver/Road):

- Primary cause: A physical obstacle (the pedestrian) suddenly appeared in the car’s path.
- Secondary cause: He arrived there by leaving the pavement.

Why It’s Cogent

When flipping vantage points (pedestrian system vs. driver system), the “primary cause” (man stepping into the road) becomes “secondary” in the driver’s viewpoint, and vice versa. Both vantage points remain consistent and plausible. There is no logical contradiction: each system maintains coherent boundaries (pedestrians belong to sidewalks, cars belong to roads), yet the same sequence of events holds up from each perspective.

In this example, the explanation is dialectically consistent; it can be expressed in a symmetrical cause–effect manner from both vantage points.

Now let’s consider an argument that cannot be reversed in this way.

Invalid Argument: Blame Game in a Software Crash

Suppose a software development manager says:

“The only real reason the application crashed is that the operating system is poorly designed.”

Meanwhile, the OS (operating system) team responds:

“The application is clearly the sole culprit—its developers ignored standard APIs.”

Attempted Switch:

System A (Operating System):

- Primary cause: The Application misused Operating System calls.
- Secondary cause: The Operating System couldn’t handle invalid requests.

System B (Application):

- Primary cause: The Operating System code is flawed, failing to gracefully handle unexpected states.
- Secondary cause: The application triggers these requests in the first place.

At first glance, we might think we can flip perspectives. However, imagine if the application team categorically refuses to concede that the system calls could have been misused, and the Operating System team likewise denies any possibility of not gracefully handling anomalies. In that scenario:

Contradiction: The argument from each side absolutely contradicts the other’s domain assumptions (each side says “100% of the blame is on the other,” leaving no room for acknowledging their own “secondary cause” at all. This is impossible because without a secondary cause there can be no effect.).
Failure of Flip: Because neither side allows any reinterpretation that might re-cast their “primary cause” as “secondary,” the argument collapses into a strict blame game. I.e. it is not possible that only one system was the cause of the crash, because that would imply that the other system was perfect. And if the other system was perfect, then regardless of the way in which it was used, no malfunction would have occurred.

Why It’s Not Cogent

The vantage points cannot be harmonized into a single coherent explanation where each system sees the other’s perspective as a legitimate partial explanation. There is no symmetrical acceptance that “What is primary for me might be secondary for you.” Each side’s argument excludes the possibility of switching roles.

In this example, the communication breakdown between the two teams is indicative of the fact that each team sees itself as operating in a vacuum. Since each team has built software that is to be used in conjunction with another software system, it is not possible that the reason for a failure in this interrelating system has to do with only one of the systems.

Now let’s look at another team conflict, which remains valid since it is not entirely exclusionary.

Valid Argument: Finance Dept. vs. Project Team

System A (Finance Department):

- Primary cause: The project overspent by ignoring budget guidelines.
- Secondary cause: Correct spending may have been disrupted by funding that arrived late, but that is overshadowed by the project’s disregard for cost-control.

System B (Project Team):

- Primary cause: The finance department released funds too late, forcing the project into costlier workarounds.
- Secondary cause: The project team’s subsequent overspending might have made matters worse, but it was triggered by the late finance release.

Demonstration of the Flip:

If the finance team “flips” perspective, they can acknowledge that delayed funding is indeed a key factor—just not the main one from their vantage.
Conversely, the project team can acknowledge that they may have gone over budget in ways that might have been avoided—though from their vantage, the main spark was finance’s delay.

Because both sides can re-express the other’s viewpoint without discarding their own system boundaries, they exhibit a dialectical willingness to shift primary vs. secondary cause. Even if they disagree on the weighting, they do not brand the other system’s claim as entirely invalid.

Why It’s Cogent

The argument from both angles can be rewritten in a symmetrical cause–effect structure, preserving each system’s boundaries and assumptions. No direct contradiction arises—only a difference in emphasis.

Since it is accepted that both systems contributed to the issue, it would be up to a senior manager, who sits “outside of both systems,” to decide what measures should be taken in future to avoid this undesirable outcome.

Conclusion

Summary

A cogent exposition is one that can accommodate multiple vantage points—hence it resists simplistic or one-sided blame assignments. In philosophical discourse, this points to a coherence theory of justification: the explanation is justified by how well it integrates relevant perspectives without absolute contradiction.

Passing the Reversal Test does not establish objective truth in a final sense. It merely shows that the explanation is internally and cross-perspectivally consistent (coherent).

Practical Relevance

Conflict Resolution: Recognizing that each system’s “primary cause” may be the other’s “secondary cause” encourages negotiation instead of blame.
Critical Thinking: The Reversal Test forces us to flip narratives and see if the cause–effect chain stands up to reflection from alternate boundaries.

Application

Identify the “systems” and their boundaries.
Express the event from System A’s vantage (labeling the “primary” and “secondary” causes).
Re-express the same event from System B’s vantage (switching labels appropriately).
See if both sets of statements remain coherent when combined or compared.

If an argument can survive this viewpoint flip, it attains a stronger standing as a cogent, comprehensive explanation.

“Does it Make Sense?”: The Reversal Test