Re: Ove Interest?

On Tue, 18 Feb 2025 06:51:24 -0500, Catrike Ryder
<Soloman@old.bikers.org> wrote:

On Mon, 17 Feb 2025 21:09:21 -0500, Frank Krygowski
<frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>

On 2/17/2025 6:27 PM, Catrike Ryder wrote:

 
Nonsense. Correlation does not imply causation

>
That remark, spouted so often by our timid tricycle rider, is flagrantly
stupid! Of _course_ correlation can strongly imply causation.

>
Nope. It always requires more. Correlation all by itself doesn't even
imply a relationship, let alone causation.
>

Applying higher force to a given mass correlates with more acceleration.
That correlation correctly implies causation.

>
Ah, yes, an outcome is likely to correlate with the action that caused
it.
Turning your claim backwards doesn't make it true
>

Inputting more heat to a given amount of mass correlates with an
increase in temperature. That correlation correctly implies causation.

>
<LOL> Ah, yes, an outcome is likely to correlate with the action that
caused it.
Turning your claim backwards doesn't make it true
>

Providing proper fertilization to a growing plant correlates with faster
growth. That correlation correctly implies causation.

>
<SNORT> Ah, yes, an outcome is likely to correlate with the action
that caused it.
Turning your claim backwards doesn't make it true
>

I doubt that even the tricycle rider will deny those causations. But he
hauls out his erroneous old chestnut whenever he sees a correlation that
he doesn't personally like - as if his uneducated opinion is the
standard for truth.
>
What he means is correlation does not _prove_ causation. He might have
learned that if he were better educated.
>
But I should stop wasting time trying to educate the uneducable.

>
Krygowski fallaciously and ignorantly attempts to claim that
correlation implies causation by stating that there is correlation
between two events when one does actually cause the other, as
evidenced by something other the correlation.
>
Affirming the consequent is a formal fallacy that is committed when it
is stated that because the consequent is true, therefore the
antecedent is true.
>
Simply stated for Krygowski's benefit:
It's claiming that if P implies Q, therefore Q implies P
>
Krygowski might have learned that if he were better educated.
>
But then again, understanding the intricacies of logic requires a
level of intellect that Krygowski does not possess.

My wife, who just crawled out of bed and is a very bright suggested a
better explanation of affirming the consequent using Krygowski's
example .

Yes indeed, fertilization to a growing plant may cause faster
growth, but faster growth is not caused by fertilizer if the plant
does not have sunlight and water, is not diseased, damaged, or
infested with bugs. The faster growth may also have been caused by
better sunlight and water, or by repairing damage or ridding it of
bugs.

To suggest that because fertilization may make a plant grow faster
implies that plants necessarily grow faster because of fertilization
is affirming the consequent.

In simpler terms, it takes more than correlation to imply causation.

It's a simple and obvious fact to anyone who is not intellectually
challenged that people who have guns and get shot could also have been
shot because of many other circumstances.

I also found the following:

"Affirming the consequent is a formal logical fallacy that takes a
true statement and invalidly infers its converse."
https://helpfulprofessor.com/affirming-the-consequent-examples/

I wonder if Krygowski will repond to his being, once again, proven
wrong. Come on, Frankie, grow some balls.

--
C'est bon
Soloman