If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Slate)   Next time some pseudo-intellectual internet blowhard tries to take away your carefully thought-out arguments with that "correlation does not imply causation" yarn, just send them here because YOU WIN   (slate.com) divider line 27
    More: Cool  
•       •       •

27660 clicks; posted to Main » on 02 Oct 2012 at 5:31 PM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



Voting Results (Funniest)
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


Archived thread
2012-10-02 05:44:16 PM
13 votes:
Oblig:
images.businessweek.com 
/hot
2012-10-02 04:48:23 PM
10 votes:
imgs.xkcd.com
2012-10-02 04:41:22 PM
5 votes:
I prefer to say "post hoc ergo propter hoc".
2012-10-02 05:43:04 PM
4 votes:
The author is a whiny douche. I correlate his douchiness with his whininess. But they are not causal from one another. Instead, they are both direct results of him being a dicksmack.
2012-10-02 06:24:03 PM
3 votes:
Correlation doesn't imply causation. No, no, correlation takes causation out to a nice dinner, buys it a little wine, makes small talk, then quietly drives it home, shakes its hand and never calls again. That's just how it is, and causation will never know what it did wrong or what is wrong with it, but correlation and causation will never be quite the same after that. Sure, they'll pass each other on the street, stand about awkwardly while they catch up on things, all the wile looking for the quickest way out of the conversation. And, still, when they walk away, they wonder for a few seconds about how it all just didn't work out, and what might have been different if it had somehow. Then, one day, when they're both older and much more mature, correlation will finally tell causation the truth, the whole story, but it won't matter because causation already moved on in such alarming and speechless ways that it just doesn't matter anymore, man. It just doesn't matter, and it's probably all for the best. But thanks. Thanks anyway.

And that, son, is the story correlation and causation. Don't ever let it happen to you. If you find our causation, you go after it. You go after it with everything you have, and you make sure it knows how you feel about it and just how far you're willing to go after it. Because, if you don't, someday years from now, you might just find out that you were the cause all along, and not the correlation. And that's the worst thing that can happen in life or in love right there.
2012-10-02 05:06:13 PM
3 votes:
Oh look, it's another one of the "that thing doesn't exactly mean that!" articles. I'll step aside and let the pedants masturbate furiously over this one.
2012-10-02 07:39:39 PM
2 votes:
mw2.google.com

^Example of coralation implying causation^
2012-10-02 06:03:02 PM
2 votes:
Babel Fish, therefore: God.

/puff
2012-10-02 05:52:38 PM
2 votes:

RexTalionis: I prefer to say "post hoc ergo propter hoc".


Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipisicing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua, I always say.
2012-10-02 05:45:46 PM
2 votes:

89 Stick-Up Kid: I think the author of this article is butt hurt from losing too many internet arguments.


correlation does not imply causation
2012-10-02 05:45:04 PM
2 votes:

Treygreen13: I had always heard it as "Correlation does not equal causation."

Either way:
[benfry.com image 500x358]


OMG! It totally IS the fault of the pirates! Pirates prevent global warming! Grab ye pigstickers me 'earties! Tis time to plunder!
2012-10-02 05:41:26 PM
2 votes:
Sad people use IM and file-share. They play video games. They surf the Web in their own, sad way.

They also post comments on news-aggregator sites.
2012-10-02 05:37:18 PM
2 votes:
I had always heard it as "Correlation does not equal causation."

Either way:
benfry.com
2012-10-03 12:04:19 AM
1 votes:

trappedspirit: Oh FFS, everyone with half a brain has the list of logical fallacies in their clipboard and just pastes "moving the goal posts" until they hit "back-pedaling" and slip in some "tautology" dripping from your "strawman". And when they start sounding really cool they throw in some "appeal to authority" with a side order of "anecdotal evidence" until we get to their "ad hominem" money shot. That's not cliched. That's how real brainiac powerhouses roll! Huzza!


Wow, you really went down the slippery slope there.
2012-10-03 12:03:30 AM
1 votes:
Oh FFS, everyone with half a brain has the list of logical fallacies in their clipboard and just pastes "moving the goal posts" until they hit "back-pedaling" and slip in some "tautology" dripping from your "strawman". And when they start sounding really cool they throw in some "appeal to authority" with a side order of "anecdotal evidence" until we get to their "ad hominem" money shot. That's not cliched. That's how real brainiac powerhouses roll! Huzza!
2012-10-02 10:41:47 PM
1 votes:

meanmutton: uber humper: Correlation doesn't equal causation.

Causation does equal causation. Don't forget that.

Everything has a cause. Nothing happens just 'cuz

1) Combinations of things frequently happen "just 'cuz"
2) There is no cosmic plan; not everything happens for a reason.


fusionanomaly.net

Miller: A lot o' people don't realize what's really going on. They view life as a bunch o' unconnected incidents 'n things. They don't realize that there's this, like, lattice o' coincidence that lays on top o' everything. Give you an example; show you what I mean: suppose you're thinkin' about a plate o' shrimp. Suddenly someone'll say, like, plate, or shrimp, or plate o' shrimp out of the blue, no explanation. No point in lookin' for one, either. It's all part of a cosmic unconciousness.
Otto: You eat a lot of acid, Miller, back in the hippie days?

/Alex Cox is always relevant
2012-10-02 09:29:02 PM
1 votes:

Animatronik: and is still important to 21st century progressives, who cherry-pick correlations and declare them to be facts with no supporting logic to back them up


I suppose the irony of that flew right over your head.

You know what pisses me off about arguing online? People who cry ad hominem. I see this frequently used as an "I win" clause - you insult me, that means you have no argument and I'm right.

What is usually happening in this situation is that the person is a certified moron, so instead of wasting their breath trying to convince the person of something, they call them a cocksucker instead.

www.netbooknews.com
And this. If you post this, you're a ball sniffer. Not all debate is civil.
2012-10-02 08:26:35 PM
1 votes:

Amos Quito: doglover: Meanwhile, totally insane arguments like "The gods cut off the giant's penis and tossed into the ocean

Nimrod!


More like Numbrod now. shiat! It's cold down there.
2012-10-02 06:40:08 PM
1 votes:
i.imgur.com
2012-10-02 06:05:56 PM
1 votes:
Slate is making fun of internet cliches.

Next week: Wall Street brokers warn against the dangers of reckless investing.
ecl
2012-10-02 06:02:05 PM
1 votes:
Came to crucify this article.

Animatronik: I love TFA. The author says the phrase is overused and flawed, yet reaffirms that it is very much true. Theres not much there, until you realize that people who promote specious arguments using weak correlations have a lot invested in not being required to explain causation very well.

Best example is racism. People point to how some races do better than others financially as proof of inherited differences in intelligence. Clearly this a weak argument but it fits right in with what the author is suggesting. Because Progressives need for ppl to be impressed by arguments based on correlations, so they use similar logic.


Did you just have a seizure?
2012-10-02 05:48:58 PM
1 votes:
I've noticed an interesting correlation between the number of sentences read in any given smarmy Slate article and my level of stabbiness.

Maybe this once, correlation does equal causation.
2012-10-02 05:42:21 PM
1 votes:

ultraholland: Sad people use IM and file-share. They play video games. They surf the Web in their own, sad way.

They also post comments on news-aggregator sites.


Zing!
2012-10-02 05:38:09 PM
1 votes:

Donnchadha: kxs401: I guess I'm just ignorant, because I certainly realize that correlation doesn't PROVE causation, but why doesn't it imply it? If A and B are correlated, possible explanations are that A causes B or B causes A. When we notice that smoking is correlated with lung cancer, why wouldn't we go looking to find causality?

You can probably find a correlation between two seemingly random things, however it does not imply that there necessarily has to be a causal link between them. I could probably correlate levels of beer consumptions with hours of football watched, for example. However, just because people who watch more football might also drink more beer means that watching football causes you to drink beer or that drinking beer causes to you watch football. The societal trend of drinking beer while watching football comes from an external social stimulus, not as an inherent property of beer or football.


I'd argue that beer is inherently necessary to be able to enjoy a game that's 11 minutes of actual action packed into a 60 minute format, nested within a 3.5 hour block of time on TV, most of which is commercials.

\Now back to your regularly scheduled statistics and logic slapfest.
2012-10-02 05:25:20 PM
1 votes:

This About That: Correlation does imply causation.


Bad drivers need to drink in order to feel comfortable behind the whee..
2012-10-02 05:09:24 PM
1 votes:
I'll just leave this here
2012-10-02 04:44:47 PM
1 votes:
Argumentum ad ignorantiam
 
Displayed 27 of 27 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report