sen_no_ongaku

While this appears to be not true of you, as your commentary is quite thoughtful and trenchant, I think it's all too common a thing for someone to simply state "correlation is not causation" and leave it at that, as if that proves that whoever is trying to make a point is incorrect.

For example, the global warming issue. There is, of course, one side of it -- the global warming / pirate reduction correlation. And on the other side, one can also claim that the correlation between the advent of the Industrial Revolution, the resultant rise in carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere, and the rise of average global temperatures is just that -- a meaningless, cherry-picked correlation.

I think it's all too common a thing for someone to simply state "correlation is not causation" and leave it at that, as if that proves that whoever is trying to make a point is incorrect.

well, when there's an implication of causation, isn't the burden of proof on those doing the implying?

also, while i agree that having someone anonymous debate you is unbalanced, i'd like to say that while most people assume anonymous commenters are lj members who simply don't want to be identified, they may simply be people who read their friends' lj posts and may not have an lj account themselves. not that you make this assumption yourself, but the anonymous poster could claim he or she is anyone at this point and there's no way for you to verify. of course the fact that s/he says it's not important to be identified does put it in the "i don't want to be identified" side rather than just the "i don't have an lj account" side. so, uh i guess, nevermind. ;)

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.

i agree, but you yourself said the anonymous poster is making "quite thoughtful and trenchant" comments, and s/he does point out other corrolations and possible causes, as do others in comments on this post, so there's not a lot of goalpost moving, and your railing against those who only use "corrolation does not mean causation" as an excuse (as is your right, as it's your own post) is a little confusing in debating/refuting said anonymous's points, if that's what you were trying to do.

Those remarks were not intended as a refutation of h/h arguments, just a general caution.

it's a good caution.

i actually find that mentioning "correlation does not necessarily equal causation" is refreshing when compared to the "heavy metal/role-playing games/video games _causes_ violent behaviour" and like tropes that permeate media reports. even this one, where the article title uses a slightly less forceful "might cause" (i do like that you used "a possible link" instead in your post) already colors the reader.

and just like there are dumb examples of "corrolation != causation" like being shot/dying or monkeys/humans, i think people have been besieged with more sensationalistic "corrolation != causation" examples which are not proven, like marijuana/gateway drug, or the above mentioned fill-in-the-blank/violent behavior, or people who break the speed limit had to first drive at or under the speed limit, thus driving at or under the speed limit causes speeding! ;)

er, the second != should be a =.

Huh

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject