Date: 2006-10-17 06:38 pm (UTC)
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.

This account has disabled anonymous posting.
If you don't have an account you can create one now.
HTML doesn't work in the subject.
More info about formatting

Profile

sen_no_ongaku

June 2025

S M T W T F S
123 4567
891011121314
15161718 192021
22232425262728
2930     

Most Popular Tags

Style Credit

Expand Cut Tags

No cut tags
Page generated Jul. 18th, 2025 06:21 pm
Powered by Dreamwidth Studios