well, when there's an implication of causation, isn't the burden of proof on those doing the implying?
Yes, the burden of proof lies on the investigator, but it's a common thing for the convincee to respond, "I don't believe what you're trying to prove, so any proof you supply is invalid because correlation does not mean causation." If the convincee keeps moving the goalposts, the burden of proof becomes impossible to satisfy.
The problem is, I can always say, "Well, just because those two factors are correlated doesn't mean there's causality involved." Just because people tend to die when shot in the face doesn't mean shooting people in the face causes death. Just because mass extinctions happen to occur when humans move into an area doesn't mean that humans cause mass extinctions.
Just because monkeys and humans are genetically and physiologically similar and monkeys preceded humans temporally doesn't mean that humans evolved from monkeys.
no subject
Yes, the burden of proof lies on the investigator, but it's a common thing for the convincee to respond, "I don't believe what you're trying to prove, so any proof you supply is invalid because correlation does not mean causation." If the convincee keeps moving the goalposts, the burden of proof becomes impossible to satisfy.
The problem is, I can always say, "Well, just because those two factors are correlated doesn't mean there's causality involved." Just because people tend to die when shot in the face doesn't mean shooting people in the face causes death. Just because mass extinctions happen to occur when humans move into an area doesn't mean that humans cause mass extinctions.
Just because monkeys and humans are genetically and physiologically similar and monkeys preceded humans temporally doesn't mean that humans evolved from monkeys.