RexTalionis: I prefer to say "post hoc ergo propter hoc".
89 Stick-Up Kid: I think the author of this article is butt hurt from losing too many internet arguments.
Treygreen13: I had always heard it as "Correlation does not equal causation."Either way:[benfry.com image 500x358]
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!
meanmutton: uber humper: Correlation doesn't equal causation.Causation does equal causation. Don't forget that.Everything has a cause. Nothing happens just 'cuz1) Combinations of things frequently happen "just 'cuz"2) There is no cosmic plan; not everything happens for a reason.
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
Amos Quito: doglover: Meanwhile, totally insane arguments like "The gods cut off the giant's penis and tossed into the oceanNimrod!
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.
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.
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.
This About That: Correlation does imply causation.
Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.
When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.
Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.
You need to create an account to submit links or post comments.
Click here to submit a link.
Also on Fark
Submit a Link »
Copyright © 1999 - 2017 Fark, Inc | Last updated: Jun 26 2017 09:18:35
Runtime: 0.327 sec (327 ms)