>Regular person "x happened and y occurred afterwards. Therefore x caused y."
>scientist "CORRELATION DOESNT EQUAL CAUSATION."
>Regular person "so when I throw this ball at the wall and it bounces off I can't assume that the wall is what stopped it from going through."
>scientist "THATS NOT THE SAME THING!"
Why are STEMfags so delusional and dishonest?
Correlation =/ is the meme of abject losers in a conversation. Its like when dubya was said the absence of proof doesn't equate to it's absence about his imaginary nukes
Reminds me of the Aristophanes
>>1217631
Explain
>>1217611
It's not scientists who say that normally.
It's liberal arts students who like "I fucking love science"'s page on Facebook and blurt out memes without understanding them.
>>1217611
>CORRELATION DOESNT EQUAL CAUSATION
I hear this a lot and have never really wanted to actually understand it completely as it would seem to be a lot of heavy reading.
Is it a smart way of saying 'coincidence'?
>>1217689
No it's a meme by STEMtards because what is seemingly causal to us can't empirically be proven to be causal.
Everything is correlation brother
>>1217689
Not necessarily a coincidence.
Ice cream consumption correlates with drowning.
Not because one causes the other, but because they are both caused by a third variable I hadn't mentioned yet: heat. When it's hot people go out for ice-cream and for a swim, which in turn increases odds of drowning.
So, knowing there is a correlation between two variables doesn't give you the whole picture, see?
>>1217713
>So, knowing there is a correlation between two variables doesn't give you the whole picture, see?
Heh, thanks I do see now.
>>1217689
Kinda. It's more that your argument should be based around explaining how x causes y and otherwise it's invalid or at least incomplete.
Is this thread entirely bait, or are people really this stupid?
>One day I kill a fly
>I walk outside the next day and someone drops a bomb on my head
>Since it's correlated, it must be causation! Damn, I really shouldn't have killed that fly!
>One person is starved in childhood
>One is well-fed
>Well-fed person ends up being both smarter and taller as a result
>Look, correlation, so it must be causation! Being tall directly causes you to be smart!
>>1217724
you do understand that nobody knows what causation is, right ?
otherwise, please do tell us what ''the vent x causes the event y'' means and how you check this, and how you are able to distinguish event x from event y.
>>1217721
No biggie.
>>1217725
You didn't understand the OP at all lmao
>>1217611
>>1217628
>>1217689
You faggot do not understand the concept of unknown variables
Can this thread be about cats since the cat thread got derailed?
Philosophy is just structuring and formalizing in natural languages.
mathematics are about formalizations of your speculations (which you form from your desire to see things that you experience [the empirical world, once you chose to objectify what you feel] through induction, as similar or dissimilar) to the point that you have a structure more formalized than your speculations structured in natural languages.
Logic is just a the formalization of your speculations about *validity of inferences*, so here logic is a formal part of mathematics.
It turns out that plenty of mathematical structures are cast into some formal deductive logic (like set theory formalizes your structures of numbers).
I meant your usual set theory cast in FOL. Set theory is just a structure too and it turns out that you can interpret a part of this structure as some kind of numbers.
Science is just claiming that your formalized structures (in formal languages or not) gives you access to some *reality*, more or less hidden with respect to what you are conscious of[=the empirical world, once you choose to ''externalize, objectify'' what you feel].
Same thing for the religions which go beyond empiricism [=claiming that you feel and think is **not** enough from which you choose to dwell in your mental proliferations].
Some mathematicians, typically Brouwer, think that mathematics should, equally to the speculations (however formalized) of the scientists, talk about the empirical world. So typically, your formal symbols are real entities: these entities belong to some world and they connect or not back to the empirical world.
to be clearer, the symbols are names of real entities and, since you begin always from the empirical world, this world constrains you on the creation and usage of these real entities. then these real entities can or cannot belong to some other world as well.
Lmao at all the posters not getting what OP was saying
OP is complaining about stemfags who blindly accept causation, OP isnt trying to justify correlation
Lmao at all the posters not getting what OP was saying
OP is complaining about stemfags who blindly accept causation, OP isnt trying to justify correlation
Lmao at all the posters not getting what OP was saying
OP is complaining about stemfags who blindly accept causation, OP isnt trying to justify correlation
Lmao at all the posters not getting what OP was saying
OP is complaining about stemfags who blindly accept causation, OP isnt trying to justify correlation
Lmao at all the posters not getting what OP was saying
OP is complaining about stemfags who blindly accept causation, OP isnt trying to justify correlation
I think you are misquoting...
It's "Correlation does not imply causation"
Which means just because something happens at the same time does not mean they are linked.
However, it doesn't mean that they cannot be linked, its just that you should find other proof of linkage before coming to a conclusion.
Lmao at all the posters not getting what OP was saying
OP is complaining about stemfags who blindly accept causation, OP isnt trying to justify correlation
>>1217741
How does this meme correspond with actual assumptions people hypothesize? People always just come in and misrepresent your argument by directing people to arguments you didn't make
You can't win arguments, you either convince the other side or you don't. Your autistic insults only make yourself feel better
>>1217886
>You can't win arguments, you either convince the other side or you don't.
Arguing here has never been about that, it's more like theater to convince the undecided onlookers. Many of whom take well to seeing people insulted.
>>1217886
Because there are usually multiple variables that are not taken into consideration when determining causation. Correlation typically examines how one independent variable affects another dependent variable, despite more important independent variables not being taken into consideration.
To sum it up for someone as ignorant as you, "nice argument fagton, you sure convinced me with those hot opinions"
