82,891
edits
Correlation: Difference between revisions
no edit summary
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary Tags: Mobile edit Mobile web edit |
||
| Line 30: | Line 30: | ||
Glomming on to a satisfying correlation dodges the hard question, which is, “what possible ''better evidence'' of true causation — a “necesary connexion” between cause and effect — ''could there be''?” | Glomming on to a satisfying correlation dodges the hard question, which is, “what possible ''better evidence'' of true causation — a “necesary connexion” between cause and effect — ''could there be''?” | ||
This is not a new conundrum. It was first posed by {{author|David Hume}}, in 1739 — | This is not a new conundrum. It was first posed by {{author|David Hume}}, in 1739 — “necessary connexion” was his phrase — and he answered it in the negative. There is no better evidence of causation. | ||
But, fortunately for the interests of narrow-minded righteousness and [[determinism]], Hume allegedly once met someone who was racist, so we can entirely ignore him and the quarter of a millennium of epistemology that he spurred. Plus, he was a Scot.<ref>Disclosure for humourless [[libtard]]s: deliberate irony, intended as a joke.</ref> | But, fortunately for the interests of narrow-minded righteousness and [[determinism]], Hume allegedly once met someone who was racist, so we can entirely ignore him and the quarter of a millennium of epistemology that he spurred. Plus, he was a Scot.<ref>Disclosure for humourless [[libtard]]s: deliberate irony, intended as a joke.</ref> | ||