Re: Science of cycling still largely mysterious

On Wed, 21 May 2025 20:29:13 -0500, AMuzi <am@yellowjersey.org> wrote:

On 5/21/2025 7:27 PM, Catrike Ryder wrote:

On Wed, 21 May 2025 20:07:10 -0400, Frank Krygowski
<frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
 

On 5/21/2025 7:50 PM, Catrike Ryder wrote:

On Wed, 21 May 2025 18:46:55 -0400, Frank Krygowski
<frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>

On 5/21/2025 3:36 PM, Catrike Ryder wrote:

  
Either ignorance is when a person doesn't know what they need to know,
or else, everyone is ignorant.

We're dealing with a slow learner.
>
The conversation so far should have made it clear that everyone is
ignorant about _some_ things.

>
Indeed...  so ignorance is when someone doesn't know something they
need to know, not just when they just don't know something.

Logic error. That wasn't a logical conclusion at all, based on what went
before.
>
Maybe you should get curious about logic! Try a course in Symbolic
Logic. It can be fun, and very enlightening.

 
  Is that where you "learned" that correlation implies causation?
 
For most people simple logic requires no group think time in
classroom, and no dimbulb wussy standing in front of a classrom
spouting his own biased nonsense.
 
--
C'est bon
Soloman

>
>
If you two stop pissing in each other's beer, correlation
does _suggest_ causation. That's how we form hypotheses.
>
A correlation may be coincidental or it may be in fact
causal for which we need (depending on the question) an
appropriate experiment or a large enough data series to
prove or disprove it.

I disagree. Correlation, by itself, doesn't suggest anything more than
a unidentified person expressing an opinion. Either of those events
might suggest further investigation, but alone, they suggest zilch.

Before correlation suggests anything, you must first establish a
relationship between the two events.  IOW, it would be foolish to
investigate the correlation between two unrelated events. One must
also consider how other events and factors play into it, and, of
course, which event might be the cause and which, the result. The
correlation, alone, suggests nothing more than there is a correlation.
It seems to me that it takes more than simple correlation to motivate
a rational person towards further investigation of it. I can't speak
for people who are not rational.

Beyond that, for a person to draw conclusions from a simple
correlation, as has been done here, is nonsensical.

--
C'est bon
Soloman