"""Correlation is not causation"""

Is it just me, or is this argument brought up mostly by cucks or internet pseudo-scientists who use it to denounce common sense?
Whenever you point out the relations between homosexuality and AIDS rates, or poverty in socialist countries, or any other legitimate modern problem, they always denounce with that buzzword phrase.

Other urls found in this thread:

youtube.com/playlist?list=PLDDGPdw7e6Ag1EIznZ-m-qXu4XX3A0cIz
twitter.com/SFWRedditVideos

If you have a problem with them bringing that up, then just explain the causation. Shouldn't be hard if you actually understand what you're talking about.

Whatever you may want to do to discount it, it remains true.

I think the problem is that you don't understand the meaning of "imply".

Just because correlation doesn't imply causation does not automatically mean that causation isn't happening. It's just not implied by that single factor.

You can still reach a conclusion that causation is happening, you just need to reach that conclusion via a different path.

The problem is that they're idiots that don't know what they're saying actually means. Correlation does not ALWAYS mean causation, but it can absolutely be a factor in determining it. Of course they don't understand this, but what can you expect from a socialist, their brain is fundamentally inferior.

What many people seem to forget is that correlation is a necessary ingredient in a causal relationship. While pointing to some correlation and thinking it necessarily implies a causal relationship certainly is a fallacy, using a known correlation to theorize, if a causal realationship could conceivably exist, is not. Correlation should then provoke study. Perhaps dismissing the entire debate with that mantra could be considered a fallacy in itself? But in the end, the only thing that is important is if one is able to prove causation. If one is not, then the entire argument reduces to conjecture.

If there is a correlation then that might be something that makes you investigate if there is a causation, but it is certainly no proof. If you're trying to prove something, it's a shit argument, and at best is simply something you should bring up as an introduction before you go on to explain why one thing causes the other.

Confounding variables, man. How do they work?

no one's saying it couldn't, you idiot. you just can't bring up one factor and call it any kind of proof.

for the record, correlation always implies causation, in that the correlation exists in the first place. but you need to understand how weak the implication is. look to the famous Super Bowl Indicator for an example of just how much a single implication matters

hint: not very much

no one's saying it couldn't, you idiot. you just can't bring up one factor and call it any kind of proof.

for the record, correlation always implies causation, in that the correlation exists in the first place. but you need to understand how weak the implication is. look to the famous Super Bowl Indicator for an example of just how much a single implication matters.

hint: not very much.

Establishing correlation between two elements is not an established chain of causation. Biggest tautological reason is because you don't know everything in the universe so you don't truly know whether both are reacting to a third element's actions.
Go through this playlist. No really, once you understand Discreet Math you'll understand better how logic works.
youtube.com/playlist?list=PLDDGPdw7e6Ag1EIznZ-m-qXu4XX3A0cIz
Or stay plebeian, IDGAFtbqh.

It's not a buzzword. Buzzwords aren't arguments you don't like.
Now, "correlation isn't causation" is technically correct. It doesn't mean you should discard causation though. It's not a hard argument, but it's certainly a valid indicative.
Don't be a retarded nigger who goes against all logic just because a group you don't like uses logic. Dumb fuck

correlation is not as useful evidence as causation, but it's not worthless. at the very least, correlation does not preclude causation. if a correlation is all you have, that just means you also have to determine if causation also exists.

You idiots are completely misunderstanding OP: of fucking course he understands correlation isn't causation, what he's complaining about is the way mostly liberal faggots tend to use the phrase as a means of disregarding correlative evidence.

Correlation IS evidence of causation. It's far from a deductive argument, but when looking for the results of something the first place on should look is what correlates. Often times the causation itself is embedded within a system of complex variables which can't be empirically derived in a controlled manner. In such cases all you really have is the correlation to point you in the right direction.

He complained about the argument being brought up mostly by people he doesn't like, thus trying to discredit it by association. If he didn't like the way liberals used it, he'd have said "the argument as used by liberals" instead.
OP is a big boy and doesn't need faggots like you defending him anyway.

Did he say the argument itself was wrong?
No, he said "Is it just me, or is this argument brought up mostly by cucks or internet pseudo-scientists who use it to denounce common sense?" That's not a complaint about the argument itself, but about its the way people apply it.

for you

You're a map? Could you help me locate the lost city of atlantis?

...

He didn't say the argument as used by liberals was wrong.
My interpretation is most likely since he clearly said the argument was mostly used by them.

...

You have to actually point out how any of those are related to eachother first. You can't rely on coincidence

There is another reason why I think op's a retard: He brings up that the argument is used against "common sense".
When it comes to complex issues with many layers of interconnected layers, "common sense" does more harm than good. People think that every problem has a direct singular reason. And that's usually not the case when it comes to global problems.

OP has never heard of "appeal to common sense" because he's a faggot. Although I can't explain why it is a logical fallacy like I can for others

...

Agreed. Leftist will always do mental gymnastics no matter how strongly correlation indicates causation, and will just spout endless improbably theories as to why there are other factors that would influence the results.

...

No.

Any data given it is the job of the person giving the argument to prove causation.

You niggers want to be pissed off at liberals? Fine. But don't sacrifice logic in your anger.

They turned that saying into a buzzword as a means to deny the evidence in front of them. The problem with their thinking is that they think all factors they don't like that show correlation is thus not a cause. In reality, a correlation is an indication of a possible cause. Thus, the more correlations, the higher chance of a proven cause.

Luckily there is A LOT of damning evidence against everything lefists believe in and so the correlations stack up and are overwhelming indications of cause(s) they fear to be proven. They will fallback on that saying over and over but they are the ones that are misusing it and repeating it just to deflect. Before they cite it, you should take a brief time to explain to them the error in their thinking. If they have questions, explain to them in further detail how much error they have in their thoughts. Then reintroduce the evidence.

If they still cite it, they are most likely being intentionally dishonest. Leftists tend to fall into two camps, militant lefists are not intellectually sound nor honest. They debate for the sake of debating and will use as many dishonest methods to deflect. They do not even care about changing your mind. Just the fact that you think differently means you are the enemy.

The other leftists are just ignorant and they haven't thought things through. The way I have personally changed these leftists minds while debating them is actually just thinking for them. They are so receptive to explanations because they themselves are inept in their thinking, hence why they are vulnerable to tricks in the media and by other leftists. They are unfortunately forever misguided children and in that instance you must be their parent. Once you have established that role and they trust you, you will always seem to them like a parental figure. Use that role wisely.

kill all xkcd posters

Do all gays get AIDS? Not, then only partial causation. Real cause is anal sex. That has almost 100% correlation with AIDS. Do socialist countries fail because of the political system? Yes, because it has happened in every single one.

It's funny because if you try to say "correlation doesn't equal causation" with climate change people will bitch at you.
Putting two unrelated graphs together (CO2 ppm and Temperature spikes) doesn't mean climate change exists

Except we know that CO2 can do that shit from experiments. It's just basic chemistry. Now is climate change real? Yes. Is it dangerous and/or humanmade? Maybe.

...

Nice explanation fucking nerd.

Stay under 50 iq, imbecile.

wew, looks like we're on to something big

correlation may be evidence of causation
להילחם בי גויים

then you DO know that almost everything related to climate change is PREDICTIONS
and they use a linear function to determine it all. tell me, is it so simple that you can use a fucking linear equation to solve it?

Are perhaps confusing predicting the global scale temperature with predicting the weather?

its just u
what about atheists r intelligent? Do u get smarter, cuz u r atheist, or do u become atheist if u r smarter?

and then do they have aids, cuz they r gay, or r they gay, cuz they have aids?

nope. go download their fucking research papers. it's no joke full of (((high confidence))) (term used) after plugging in some gay numbers in a linear equation.

Not your personal army, etc etc

Total strawman,
Those graphs aren't even correlating, (inb4 hurr they look the same), they are measured on two different X axis, not even close to the same value, Deaths (Total im assuming) and Marriages per 100 people. You are one of the retards who cant even read a graph, or i r8 this b8 8/8
Correlation does not prove causation, but it actually does imply it somewhere if you have two things correlate closely.

I don't know, I suppose the same reason that every time a Muslim does a fucking massacre, they feel the need to say "NOT ALL MUSLIMS!"

Yet we hear the same people talk about how evil Christians/Catholics are if a school shooter grew up in a religious home. Or just in general.

It's just another form of rhetoric to push their agendas. They want to ban guns, they want you to accept the idea of having sex with people who have AIDS, they want you to be unwilling to reject someone just because you find out in a compromising position that they have a penis.

They're fucking bonkers, mate. And it ain't even just leftists really, everyone's got a grift to sell.

god is sending us messages

That's literally saying correlation equals causation. If you want to actually make a sound argument, others have done so in this thread. Explain why. Don't just show correlation and then get mad when people say that isn't enough proof. If your argument is correct, you can just explain why.


That isn't their whole argument. It's pretty easy to explain how certain chemicals and reactions would cause the effects they're talking about. And that's all you need to do if someone challenges you when you try to argue that a correlation relates to a causation. Just explain how it works.

OP and his ilk are just butthurt retards who don't understand the topics they talk about. Even in the event that they happen to be arguing for the correct answer, they're too stupid to understand why.


Both. Retards are more easily convinced to disregard the value of logic in making decisions. Once you do that, it's tough to become smarter, because you've already been convinced to disregard logic.


They still correlate because the rates match up. As one falls by a certain percantage, so does the other.

The thing is, most of the time you don't give a shit about the causation. If crime and skin tone are correlated, it's probably a really interesting academic question whether black people are prone to crime or crime turns your skin black, but most people don't care which it is, they just avoid blacks. The correlation is enough.