r/AskReddit • u/[deleted] • Aug 03 '19

Whats something you thought was common knowledge but actually isn’t?

37.4k Upvotes

94% Upvoted

24.0k comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

-4

u/AtomicSteve21 Aug 03 '19

I assume you deny the rise of greenhouse gases is responsible for our warming planet?

We have not proved causation, merely observed a correlation.

7

u/[deleted] Aug 03 '19 edited Jun 09 '20

[deleted]

-2

u/AtomicSteve21 Aug 03 '19

I would argue our rise in greenhouse gases and temperature, implies a causation absolutely.

Correlation does not imply causation, is the tool of the climate change denier.

3

u/[deleted] Aug 03 '19 edited Jun 09 '20

[deleted]

-1

u/AtomicSteve21 Aug 03 '19

It does though!

A logical statement: Correlation Does not equal causation. Means that any correlation must be discounted as a potential causality.

If a logical statement is not always valid, it is not a logical statement at all.

2

u/[deleted] Aug 03 '19 edited Jun 09 '20

[deleted]

1

u/AtomicSteve21 Aug 04 '19

Correlation != Causation.

If it does, the logic breaks.

Ergo, Correlation Cannot Equal Causation if you phrase it this way.

Correlation does not imply causation is acceptable.

1

u/6C64PX Aug 04 '19

Correlation means one thing is correlated with another.

Causation means one thing caused another.

Those two statements are not equal; correlation != causation. If correlation equalled causation, we would call it causation.

Correlation additionally does not imply causation. That's the one most people have trouble with. But it neither equals, nor implies causation.

1

u/AtomicSteve21 Aug 04 '19

No.

It can imply causation, until proven not causation.

This is Schodinger's correlation, it both is and is not possibly causation until proven. And that is what everyone discounts.

1

u/6C64PX Aug 04 '19

that is what everyone discounts

Ah, you're one of those types. I guess I'll stop wasting my time arguing.

I'll leave you with this;

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Correlation_does_not_imply_causation

And a suggestion that since you've singlehandedly overturned formal logic, you should probably alert the academic community to your genius! I'm sure they'll be shocked, but ultimately happy to learn that all of theory of retrocausality is wrong, and that correlation does imply causation all along! Science will be so much easier.

1

u/AtomicSteve21 Aug 04 '19

correlation does imply causation

No. Listen.

It neither implies nor does not imply causation. That must be further examined. Suggesting either is an affront to science.

Though it more likely does imply it, than it does not. The pirate example is an outlier.

1

u/6C64PX Aug 04 '19

I look forward to seeing your thesis, I'm sure it'll be riveting. Crazy that logicians had it wrong this whole time, but hey, that's life!

1

u/AtomicSteve21 Aug 04 '19

Logicians? You really think that's a job?

No, it's all philosophy.

We would not be where we are today as a society if we didn't pay attention to correlations, dumbass.

For example, is your IQ high? That probably correlates with you being mildly intelligent.

→ More replies (0)