What's the difference between causation and correlation?

@Zetherin,

Zetherin;75168 wrote:

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, pretty 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.

As I just pointed out, he must mean that induction is non-rational, not irrational. Who would claim such a thing? And, yes, it is true that he does not say what fallacy induction commits. Maybe he was just, as you say, too worked up.

Like Hume, he doesn't think that inductive inference is irrational. Hume never said such a silly thing. Hume claimed that since induction could not be justified, it was non-rational. Or just "custom". He said the same about the belief in an external world.

@Zetherin,

David Hume wrote:

All inferences from experience, therefore, are effects of custom, not of reasoning. Custom, then, is the great guide of human life. It is that principle alone which renders our experience useful to us, and makes us expect, for the future, a similar train of events with those which have appeared in the past. Without the influence of custom, we should be entirely ignorant of every matter of fact beyond what is immediately present to the memory and senses. We should never know how to adjust means to ends, or to employ our natural powers in the production of any effect. There would be an end at once of all action, as well as of the chief part of speculation.

The above is gospel. If you disagree then you are wrong and so much the worse for you. Figure out why you're wrong and then get back to me when you do.

@Satan phil,

Satan;75171 wrote:

The above is gospel. If you disagree then you are wrong and so much the worse for you. Figure out why you're wrong and then get back to me when you do.

I suppose that is called, "an argument from authority". In the Middle Ages, the authority was Aristotle via Thomas Aquinas. For you, it is David Hume. I yield to no one in my admiration of Hume, but it does not follow that because Hume says it is true, it is, therefore true. Not even if you say so. I thought that since Descartes, we have discarded arguments from authority, at least as deductive arguments, although, of course, they still have their place as inductive arguments. Don't you agree?

@Satan phil,

Satan;75171 wrote:

The above is gospel. If you disagree then you are wrong and so much the worse for you. Figure out why you're wrong and then get back to me when you do.

LOL, I haven't laughed this hard in a while.

Nothing is "gospel", my friend. But if you do regard this as "gospel", then surely you are the one with the faith-based position. Have you tried to reason this for yourself? I believe the great majority would agree induction is still reasoning, despite it's normative influence. If you disagree with this, you're being irrational.

@Zetherin,

Zetherin;75174 wrote:

LOL, I haven't laughed this hard in a while.

Nothing is "gospel", my friend. But if you do regard this as "gospel", then surely you are the one with the faith-based position. Have you tried to reason this for yourself? I believe the great majority would agree induction is still reasoning, despite it's normative influence.

All reasoning is normative. Inductive arguments conclude that we ought (or ought not) to believe the conclusion. Induction is not alone in being normative. So is deduction.

@kennethamy,

kennethamy;75176 wrote:

All reasoning is normative. Inductive arguments conclude that we ought (or ought not) to believe the conclusion. Induction is not alone in being normative. So is deduction.

That's a great point, actually. Isn't any logical system or mode of reasoning conventional? It's an accepted study by which we come to valid inference and correct reasoning.

However, I fear no matter what we say Satan isn't going to consider because our names are "Zetherin" and "kennethamy" instead of "Hume" and "Hume".

@Zetherin,

Zetherin;75180 wrote:

That's a great point, actually. Isn't any logical system or mode of reasoning conventional? It's an accepted study by which we come to valid inference and correct reasoning.

However, I fear no matter what we say Satan isn't going to consider because our names are "Zetherin" and "kennethamy" instead of "Hume" and "Hume".

The fact that something is accepted, does not make it conventional. It is accepted that Earth is a sphere. That does not make the shape of Earth conventional. It isn't a just a matter of convention that it is impossible for a valid argument with true premises to have a false conclusion. I think Satan realized how fallacious his argument from authority is. Hume would turn over in his grave if he knew he was being used as a kind of infallible authority. Remember, he was a skeptic.

@Zetherin,

Zetherin;75180 wrote:

Isn't any logical system or mode of reasoning conventional?

Yes, I refer you back to my earlier comments of "we know what we make" and "humans make logical systems".

I also think you are focusing on the name "Hume" too much and ignoring the fact that he is absolutely right. It has nothing to do with who he was.

@Satan phil,

Satan;75185 wrote:

Yes, I refer you back to my earlier comments of "we know what we make" and "humans make logical systems".

Think you are focusing on the name "Hume" too much and ignoring the fact that he is absolutely right. It has nothing to do with who he was.

Of course humans make logical systems. No one thinks they grow in the forest. But that does not make them matters of convention. Science does not grow in the forest either. But that does not make the truths of science matters of convention, either. You don't think it is a matter of convention (agreement) that metals expand when they are heated, do you? It was a discovery. You are not much of a follower of Hume's if you think that the truths of science are conventional.

Hume is not right (if he is) because he is Hume. Nor is he right because you say so. If he is right, it is because what he says is true. And we can determine that only by argument. Not by calling it, "gospel".

@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.

Then tell me: Do you actually believe that the future will resemble the present?

In your quotation, Hume says that custom "makes us expect, for the future, a similar train of events with those which have appeared in the past". Does custom make you expect this, despite your philosophical argument that it begs the question?

@ACB,

ACB;75189 wrote:

Then tell me: Do you actually believe that the future will resemble the present?

I wouldn't be surprised if it were but I see no reason that it has to.

ACB;75189 wrote:

Does custom make you expect this, despite your philosophical argument that it begs the question?

Yes, that and a lack of appealing alternatives.

@Satan phil,

Satan;75191 wrote:

I wouldn't be surprised if it were but I see no reason that it has to.

Yes, that and a lack of appealing alternatives.

1. So you are just arguing that it is not a necessary truth that the unobserved will resemble the observed? Well, that is a much weaker claim than the one you have been making, namely that there is no good reason to think that the unobserved will resemble the observed. Just what are you arguing, anyway? I agree that it is not a necessary truth that the unobserved will continue to resemble the observed. But I think there is good reason to think that it will do so. I think you have to start making some distinctions. At least one between necessary and contingent truths.

2. I did not think you thought it was a fallacy to believe that the unobserved will continue to resemble the observed. I thought you believed that any argument for such a view contained a fallacy. Although, you never would say what that fallacy was, despite numerous urgings. I don't think you are clear about what it is you believe about induction. Do you?

@Satan phil,

Satan;75191 wrote:

I wouldn't be surprised if it were but I see no reason that it has to.

Yes, that and a lack of appealing alternatives.

OK. I still think your position is somewhat ambivalent, but thanks for the reply.

@ACB,

ACB;75211 wrote:

OK. I still think your position is somewhat ambivalent, but thanks for the reply.

We have two possibilities:

1. The universe does have certain regularities that will continue into the future.
2. The universe does not have certain regularities that will continue into the future.

If the universe does not have certain regularities then induction is no worse and no better than anything else, including random guessing.

If the universe does have certain regularities then induction, which is the method of examining past regularities and projecting them into the future, is the best method.

So, at least induction is not worse than any of the alternatives and it's even possible that it is better.

@Satan phil,

Satan;75218 wrote:

We have two possibilities:

1. The universe does have certain regularities that will continue into the future.
2. The universe does not have certain regularities that will continue into the future.

If the universe does not have certain regularities then induction is no worse and no better than anything else, including random guessing.

If the universe does have certain regularities then induction, which is the method of examining past regularities and projecting them into the future, is the best method.

So, at least induction is not worse than any of the alternatives and it's even possible that it is better.

This argument has been called, not the justification of induction, but the vindication of induction. The interesting thing is that induction has been vindicated for some time now. In fact, I can't recall a time when it was not vindicated. So, if it is not rational to believe in induction, because, on a certain account of rationality, there is no deductive or inductive argument for induction, nevertheless, the vindication argument makes it reasonable to believe induction it true. It certainly shows that it is not irrational to believe in induction. So, I am being reasonable when I believe that you will continue to participate in this thread, although, continue to avoid answering me.

@Satan phil,

Satan;75218 wrote:

If the universe does not have certain regularities then induction is no worse and no better than anything else, including random guessing.

If the universe does have certain regularities then induction, which is the method of examining past regularities and projecting them into the future, is the best method.

So, at least induction is not worse than any of the alternatives and it's even possible that it is better.

OK, I'll settle for that. :a-ok:

@ACB,

ACB;75228 wrote:

OK, I'll settle for that. :a-ok:

That's reasonable of you.

@Satan phil,

correlation is what you observe, Causation is what you infer. (in the spirit of Hume)

@prothero,

prothero;79519 wrote:

Causation is what you infer. (in the spirit of Hume)

But not in all cases (see post #4 in this thread).

@ACB,

ACB;79529 wrote:

But not in all cases (see post #4 in this thread).

If we have two clocks, and one always strikes the hour 10 seconds after the other, we do not say that one causes the other to strike. This shows that we distinguish between causation and mere correlation.

But how does that show that we do not infer causation from correlation? The inference, of course, need not always be a valid inference. We require more than mere correlation for a valid inference to causation, since although correlation is a necessary condition of causation, it is not a sufficient condition. We require controlled studies to determine that the correlation is not just accidental correlation, and, finally, some causal nexus between the cause and the effect that explains the correlation. But, correlation is a sign of causations, and a necessary condition of causation. No one claimed that correlation and causation should be identified. Even if the two clocks strike the hour simultaneously, there need be no causation, and in fact, there is none, since the striking of the two clocks is not causally connected, but they both strike the same hour because of a common cause. The same is true of night and day. Night does not cause day, nor day, night. But they are both the effects of a common cause.

Philosophy Forum

What's the difference between causation and correlation?

Quick Links

My Account

able2know