82,891
edits
Correlation: Difference between revisions
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
no edit summary
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary Tags: Mobile edit Mobile web edit |
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary Tags: Mobile edit Mobile web edit |
||
| Line 25: | Line 25: | ||
So it is true to say a lack of any correlation may not increase the likelihood of events being causally related, ''but nor, without other evidence, does the presence of one''. Especially seeing as there may be some data, as yet uncollected or [[narrative|unnarratised]], that could explain how apparently uncorrelated events are, in fact, causally related. | So it is true to say a lack of any correlation may not increase the likelihood of events being causally related, ''but nor, without other evidence, does the presence of one''. Especially seeing as there may be some data, as yet uncollected or [[narrative|unnarratised]], that could explain how apparently uncorrelated events are, in fact, causally related. | ||
Where does this leave us? | Where does this leave us? Here: '''Any [[correlation]], in the absence of better evidence of [[causation]], is ''meaningless'''''. | ||
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''?” | ||
| Line 31: | Line 31: | ||
This is not a new conundrum. It was first posed by {{author|David Hume}}, in 1739 — “necesary connexion” is his phrase — and he answered it in the negative. There is no better evidence of causation. | This is not a new conundrum. It was first posed by {{author|David Hume}}, in 1739 — “necesary connexion” is 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. | 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. | ||
{{sa}} | {{sa}} | ||