Re: Ove Interest?

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.