What's the difference between causation and correlation?

@Satan phil,

Satan;75100 wrote:

No, it's merely a logical fallacy.

Values of right and wrong are not truth evaluable as there is always some sort of subjective emotional component.

By "logical fallacy" I suppose you mean a formal deductive fallacy. And, as is common, the fallacy you have in mind is the affirmation of the consequent. But, that is to judge inductive reasoning by the standards of deductive reasoning, which commits the informal fallacy of begging the question, and argument from ignorance. It would be like judging that a basketball team fails because it scores no home runs.

How does it follow that because there is some subjective component in value judgments that value judgments are not truth evaluable (or, I suppose you mean, have truth values).

@kennethamy,

kennethamy;75106 wrote:

But, that is to judge inductive reasoning by the standards of deductive reasoning, which commits the informal fallacy of begging the question, and argument from ignorance.

That's utter nonsense so it can't be refuted.

@Satan phil,

Satan;75115 wrote:

That's utter nonsense so it can't be refuted.

Oh, I didn't know. Pardon me. (Sometime, though, will you present an argument rather than an epithet? That is what philosophy is about). I think we should always judge by alien standards. It makes refutation so much easier.

@kennethamy,

kennethamy;75117 wrote:

Oh, I didn't know. Pardon me. (Sometime, though, will you present an argument rather than an epithet? That is what philosophy is about). I think we should always judge by alien standards. It makes refutation so much easier.

I don't know how to prove something is nonsense other than to state that I can't understand it.

@Satan phil,

Satan;75120 wrote:

I don't know how to prove something is nonsense other than to state that I can't understand it.

You can't understand that it may be fallacious to judge by alien standards? Hmm. Of course, it cannot follow that something is nonsense because you happen not to understand it. I would suppose that there are a number of things in science and elsewhere you do not understand, but that others do understand. Wouldn't you?

@kennethamy,

kennethamy;75125 wrote:

I would suppose that there are a number of things in science and elsewhere you do not understand, but that others do understand. Wouldn't you?

Certainly, but I trust certain kinds of authority so even though I don't understand somethings, I believe they still make sense. On the other hand, everything you've said so far that I do understand is so full of gaps and errors that I wouldn't give you the benefit of that doubt.

@Satan phil,

Satan;75128 wrote:

Certainly, but I trust certain kinds of authority so even though I don't understand somethings, I believe they still make sense. On the other hand, everything you've said so far that I do understand is so full of gaps and errors that I wouldn't give you the benefit of that doubt.

I'd really like to know where the gaps and errors lie. I think we've articulated ourselves very well here, and I still don't understand what you're not grasping. You really can't detail any of this?

@Satan phil,

Satan;75128 wrote:

Certainly, but I trust certain kinds of authority so even though I don't understand somethings, I believe they still make sense. On the other hand, everything you've said so far that I do understand is so full of gaps and errors that I wouldn't give you the benefit of that doubt.

Hmmm. Perhaps you will mention what those are, so I won't have to take your word for it, and I can learn. Why would you not think it a bad criticism of a basketball team that it did not score any home runs, for instance? I would.

@Zetherin,

Zetherin;75132 wrote:

I'd really like to know where the gaps and errors lie. I think we've articulated ourselves very well here, and I still don't understand what you're not grasping. You really can't detail any of this?

I was not talking to you.

---------- Post added 07-05-2009 at 04:42 PM ----------

kennethamy;75136 wrote:

Hmmm. Perhaps you will mention what those are, so I won't have to take your word for it, and I can learn. Why would you not think it a bad criticism of a basketball team that it did not score any home runs, for instance? I would.

I think it's best if we just end this discussion. Your continual anecdotal style is disruptive and does not advance the discussion at all. Please do not respond to me anymore and I will not respond to you either. I've got nothing nice to say about you so I shouldn't say anything at all.

@Satan phil,

Satan;75139 wrote:

I was not talking to you.

I was puzzled about the same thing. Calling something "nonsense" does not make it nonsense, nor is it reason to believe it is nonsense. Not even if you say it a number of times.

@kennethamy,

kennethamy;75141 wrote:

I was puzzled about the same thing. Calling something "nonsense" does not make it nonsense, nor is it reason to believe it is nonsense. Not even if you say it a number of times.

Please stop derailing the discussion. If you want to argue about what makes something nonsense then start a thread about it.

@Satan phil,

Satan;75142 wrote:

Please stop derailing the discussion. If you want to argue about what makes something nonsense then start a thread about it.

You began it. I said that judging induction by deductive standards is fallacious. You called it nonsense. Have you any more to add? Why do you disagree with my criticism of your saying that induction is some kind of fallacy? All you can mean it that it is a deductive fallacy (affirming the consequent) and I already told you why I think that is wrong. Now what?

@Satan phil,

Satan;75100 wrote:

No, it's merely a logical fallacy.

Values of right and wrong are not truth evaluable as there is always some sort of subjective emotional component.

OK, let's see if we can pick the discussion up from there. Can you say more about your attitude to induction, please? You're stating that:

(a) induction is not rational, because only deductive logic is rational;
(b) induction has a different kind of justification, namely a pragmatic one, i.e. it (usually) works;
(c) we don't know why it works, but we don't need to know;
(d) it is sensible to act as if (i) some possible future events are more likely than others, and (ii) causation exists, even though neither of these things is really the case.

Is that a fair summary of your argument? Please correct anything that I may have misrepresented.

@ACB,

ACB;75150 wrote:

OK, let's see if we can pick the discussion up from there. Can you say more about your attitude to induction, please? You're stating that:

(a) induction is not rational, because only deductive logic is rational;
(b) induction has a different kind of justification, namely a pragmatic one, i.e. it (usually) works;
(c) we don't know why it works, but we don't need to know;
(d) it is sensible to act as if (i) some possible future events are more likely than others, and (ii) causation exists, even though neither of these things is really the case.

Is that a fair summary of your argument? Please correct anything that I may have misrepresented.

Satan says that induction commits a fallacy. I would like to hear more about that too.

@ACB,

ACB;75150 wrote:

(b) induction has a different kind of justification, namely a pragmatic one, i.e. it (usually) works;

It works but assuming it will continue to work begs the question, viz. that the future will resemble the present.

ACB;75150 wrote:

Is that a fair summary of your argument? Please correct anything that I may have misrepresented.

Yes it's fair with the above caveat. Thanks for trying to clarify this.

@Satan phil,

Satan;75157 wrote:

It works but assuming it will continue to work begs the question, viz. that the future will resemble the present.

Yes it's fair with the above caveat. Thanks for trying to clarify this.

But, still, what is the fallacy that, according to you, induction commits? And how can it work if it commits a fallacy? What does it work to do? I don't think that any logician would say that a certain kind of argument commits a fallacy, but never mind, use it, since it works. What would that mean? It seems to me that ACB is too easily placated.

@Satan phil,

Satan wrote:

It works but assuming it will continue to work begs the question, viz. that the future will resemble the present.

It's not begging the question because this fallacy implies we're assuming a proposition that requires proof is true without proof. Using induction does not require any further proof, nor does the assumption to use the induction. The proof is in the experience.

It still boils down to everyone using induction, and that the conclusions drawn from strong induction can be rational. Everyone must have a faith-based position in your eyes, then, because everyone believes that certain things will happen the way they've always happened each and every day. And if everyone is consistently committing the fallacy, why even call it a fallacy? There's no reason to even make the distinction. It's like going around and calling all your friends human, as if there were an alternate choice.

It's just funny to me that you consider my position:

Quote:

Belief without evidence. I would call that a faith-based position.

yet it has to be your position also in order for you to even function. :listening:

Or do you just go around despising yourself because you consistently think you're being irrational? That would be nuts, man.

@Zetherin,

Zetherin;75162 wrote:

Or do you just go around despising yourself because you consistently think you're being irrational? That would be nuts, man.

I don't despise myself for being irrational. Is that why you seem so reluctant to admit you're irrational as well?

@Satan phil,

Satan;75164 wrote:

I don't despise myself for being irrational. Is that why you seem so reluctant to admit you're irrational as well?

You think it is irrational to use induction? I hope you just really mean, non-rational. It would be irrational to use induction if induction constantly got you into trouble and it did not "work" as you like to put it, but you use it anyway. That would be self-destructive, and, therefore, irrational. But you don't seem to think that. What you seem to think, as did Hume, is that inductive inference is non-rational. It is just "custom", and custom is neither rational nor irrational. You should not let yourself be pushed into the position that you are being irrational when you use inductive inference. It is bad enough when you claim that inductive inference is fallacious-whatever you mean by that.

@Satan phil,

Satan;75164 wrote:

I don't despise myself for being irrational. Is that why you seem so reluctant to admit you're irrational as well?

Was that your whole point here - to have everyone admit they're irrational?

You still haven't addressed kennethamy. Just what fallacy is induction committing that has you so worked up?

I can be irrational, and so can everyone. But to say that critically thinking through inductive reasoning, and coming to a coherent conclusion is irrational, is absurd. Clearly there's a difference between irrationality and a well thought out inductive argument. If you don't agree, then keep believing everyone is being irrational when they engage in inductive reasoning. It makes absolutely no sense to me, though. In fact, I'd call what you're saying irrational.

Sometimes things don't always fit into a tight, complete logical box. Sometimes things have flaws, and we can devise all these fancy "fallacies" to showcase how much we really don't know. But, in the end, we still label many of these things rational. You know this as well I, so I don't understand the point you're trying to make.

Philosophy Forum

What's the difference between causation and correlation?

Quick Links

My Account

able2know