Gbaji might have a field day?Follow

While you're correct that causation does not imply correlation,

I think, moron, that you mean correlation does not imply causation.

It's ok, though, it must be hard when you don't understand what the words mean.

If you can't see the correlation there, then by what criteria do you use to determine correlation? Do you think that *anything* has to do with anything else? Or do you just make stuff up as you go along?

What I don't do, is create a theory that benefits me regardless of outcome and declare it a success by arbitrarily changing the criteria for measurement depending on the results.

Of course, I'm not a Republican, though. I'm fine with admitting that various well intended social science agendas have turned out to be misguided failures throughout history. I don't have to pretend that every welfare state ever has been a giant success by changing the standards of measurement.

Here's the problem. You're determined to win an argument, I'm determined to find the truth. This is why we will always be at odds. Reality matters to me, and largely to the Left, while fantasy and idealized values that happen coincide exactly with self interest dominate the Right. It doesn't matter how blatantly obvious the reality is, if it's in your self interest, you'll attempt (stunningly poorly by any measure, mind you) to rationalize it.

Your position on gay marriage, for instance, is completely and uniformly informed by the simple fact that you're not gay. That's the "Conservative" ethos. "I'm not gay/a terrorist/poor/black/a woman/etc. who cares what happens to them? I just don't want to ever lose my advantage of falling out of a white ****** with a tiny ******, so that's how I vote"

That's really all there is to it.

You're not allowed to use that word anymore.

Yes. It does. What it doesn't do is "prove" causation. You get the difference right? If every time I do X, Y happens, I may not have proven that X is causing Y, but it's certainly a reasonable starting point, right?

You conveniently ignored the part right after that quote where I stated that the purpose of testing in science is to prove that causal relationship.

You have to start somewhere, and correlation is the usual point. It's not like Newton just randomly thought "Hey. Maybe there's this force called gravity!". He noticed the correlation that objects tossed into the air tended to fall to the ground. That's correlation. Consistent correlation. Every object tossed into the air falls back to the ground. He then used experimentation to determine exactly how that force worked, but the initial investigation was sparked by observation of a correlative event.



Correct. However, in this example, Y and Z occur spontaneously as a result of hidden factor X. In the economic theory we're talking about, Y occurs first and as a result of direct choice (a change of factors) and Z follows. Y in this case is the action of lowering taxes. Z is the result of increased economic growth/health/etc. We know what "caused" Y. The president pushed for a cut in a set of tax rates. We can speculate that some additional hidden factor "X" was involved, but without any evidence of said factor, you're running quickly into Occam's razor (assuming additional complexity without any verifiable need).


I think part of the problem here is that we're using two differing definitions of correlation. One definition has two events occurring at the same time. The other states that one "causes" the other (or appears to cause the other, which interestingly enough makes the whole "correlation doesn't equal causation" statement a misnomer).

Under the first definition, you're correct. And certainly when we're talking about a FSM scenario that's clearly the definition we're using. However, in the specific case in front of us (does lowering taxes improve economic growth?), it's pretty clear we're using the second, right? There is a specific action taken, with a specific result intended, and that result occurred.


While I suppose it's wonderful to get caught up in semantics, your all still ignoring the key point: Changes to tax rates does affect economic growth. I would think this would be an incredibly obvious statement since economic growth must come from some action working within the economy. It's about as obvious as saying that "how much and what type of food you eat affects human growth". It's practically a no-brainer that one is a causative factor to the other (taxes *must* impact economic growth in some way). The only real question is: how?


To answer that how, we use experimentation and we examine the data. And guess what? Historical data pretty firmly supports the somewhat obvious conclusion that if you leave as much money as possible in the hands of those driving the economy (private industry), that your economy will grow as a result. It's as much of a no-brainer as saying that the more money you invest the faster your portfolio will grow. It's such an obvious thing that it's really staggering to me that anyone doubts the effect.



And once again we get ad-hominem instead of reason. You guys are nothing if not predictable...

No, what you got there was an alternative, plain-English example of the "correlation is not the same as causation" principle.

I said nothing about you being a horse's ***.

Wonderful. Except that's not what I said. I said that "consistent correlation implies causation". Which is an absolutely true statement. If one thing occurs every single time you do something, it's reasonable to suspect that it might just be the cause of that thing.

Why is this so darn hard for you people to get? You think science just appeared one day written in a textbook? Every single thing we've learned during the history of man start out as an observation of correlation. Man noticed that each year the days got longer then shorter and then repeated. He noticed that these things correlated with warmer and cooler seasons. He then charted them, figured out that growing things grew better at specific time periods, and stopped being a hunter-gatherer and began to build settled agrarian societies.

I could go on with examples of the wheel and fire and how both of those developments derived from correlative observation as well. The funny thing is that while cynics like to chant a mantra about correlation and causation when it's convenient for them (and ignore it when it's not), the reality is that the vast majority of correlations *are* causative in nature. It is the exceptions that aren't. And those are usually when one's doing some kind of strange statistical analysis of something (like the kinds liberals love to support their radical ideas with). But when we're talking about simple relationships, the vast majority of the time, if result Y consistently follows event X, it's a good bet that X is causing Y. It's not "proven", but it's certainly "implied"...



And Smash? That's the stupidest argument ever. It's not about arguing that the maggots "grew out of" the rotting meat. However, it *is* reasonable to say that if meat is rotting, it's likely to develop maggots. Similarly, if meat is invested with maggots, it's reasonable to conclude that it's rotten. How the maggots got there isn't the issue. The fact that rotting meat results in the appearance of maggots is. You've managed to combine like three different fallacies into that single statement. Congratulations...

Well, we can get into the definition of "implies" in the strict sense used in logic if you'd like.

However, it suffices simply to say that your statement and mine overlap in two cases, one of which makes you wrong (correlated, but not caused) and one of which doesn't (not correlated, but caused anyway). Since the second one doesn't occur in reality, the only logical conclusion is that either you are wrong, or one of us doesn't have a firm grasp on reality.

I could take a poll as to the answer to that, if you think it would help your case any.

Someone needs to teach you two how to use statistical analysis better. At the very least we'll get similar brickwall debates but with more useless graphs.

Someone needs to teach you two how to use statistical analysis better. At the very least we'll get similar brickwall debates but with more useless graphs.

I've found the more education required to understand an argument, the crazier he gets, and the argument becomes about the technique. Not that it matters. It's just sport. Literally no one has taken the guy seriously for years now. Which is pretty amazing when you think about it.

I've certainly thought to myself "well, that's an interesting argument" when reading people whose positions I'm diametrically opposed to, almost always. Even lunatic homicidal racists or what have you. It's simply stunning how someone could fail so miserably at simple rhetorical logic while still managing to string sentences together at a tenth grade level.

I'm 85% convinced that it's an elaborate parody, but Nexa tells me that I'm just spoiled by largely arguing with people with better rhetorical skills, which may be the case.

And Smash? Your problem is that you think argument is all about rhetoric.

No, no, little peanut. I think YOUR arguments are all about rhetoric. Horrible, flawed, hackneyed rhetoric that even were its ludicrously false assumptions true wouldn't make the case, but still rhetoric.

It's also amusing how every time it can be boiled down to "what does Gbaji think is best for him personally". Every. Single. Time.

Most 4 year olds move beyond that and argue extemporaneously about things from positions other than first person selfish, yet you it seems never have.

Really pretty amazing.

Let's do this, though. Make a one sentence argument. A statement you think is true. Following that list five, and just five, facts that support it.

I'll do the same. Then I'll reply to your five facts with reasons I think they are or are not true, and how they relate to your statement. You do the same. Then we'll defend positions from there, but pro forma, without crazy hyperbolic arguments or interpretation of statements, just the statements. I'll completely refrain from personal attacks of any kind, you do the same, at some point we'll reach an actual point we disagree on and then we can take the gloves off from there.

As it stands, you're arguing an imaginary case that doesn't exist. *** some structure. Take five minutes just this once to add some intellectual rigor to your debating skills. See how it goes.




Edited, Feb 22nd 2008 4:36pm by Smasharoo

Neither is willing to buy premium for the image tags though and I'm not about to start clicking links.