This is a MUSIC forum. Irrelevant or disrespectful posts/topics will be removed by Admin. Please report any forum spam or inappropriate posts HERE.

All users can post to this forum on general music topics.

Moderators: bandmixmod1, jimmy990, spikedace

#203831 by Kramerguy
Fri Feb 01, 2013 2:06 pm
So what she's saying is that since temps went up globally, anything else, and that means anything.. that goes up at the same time, must by default be linked to GW.

I think the blonde dye ruptured her brain.

#203834 by jimmydanger
Fri Feb 01, 2013 2:20 pm
This is known as a Causal Fallacy. It is common for arguments to conclude that one thing causes another. But the relation between cause and effect is a complex one. It is easy to make a mistake.

In general, we say that a cause C is the cause of an effect E if and only if:

Generally, if C occurs, then E will occur, and
Generally, if C does not occur, then E will not occur ether.

We say "generally" because there are always exceptions. For example, we say that striking the match causes the match to light, because:

Generally, when the match is struck, it lights (except when the match is dunked in water), and
Generally, when the match is not struck, it does not light (except when it is lit with a blowtorch).

Many writers also require that a causal statement be supported with a natural law. For example, the statement that "striking the match causes it to light" is supported by the principle that "friction produces heat, and heat produces fire". The following are causal fallacies:

Post Hoc (Because one thing follows another, it is held to cause the other)
Joint Effect (A purported cause and effect are both the effects of a joint cause)
Insignificant (The purported cause is insignificant compared to others)
Wrong Direction (The direction between cause and effect is reversed)
Complex Cause (The cause identified is only part of the entire cause)

#203836 by GuitarMikeB
Fri Feb 01, 2013 2:28 pm
There's a book (and movie) called Freakonomics. It basically (without saying it) shows that you can prove anything is linked to something else - just be comparing the numbers that favor it.

#203838 by jimmydanger
Fri Feb 01, 2013 2:41 pm
Many things are coincidentally linked but not causally linked. A real world example is the documented fact that violent crime had been decreasing in the U.S. in recent years, at the same time as sales of guns has risen. The two statistics are most likely not related, but because they occurred in the same time period they are linked by some people to support their agenda. This is a Causal Fallacy. The first philosophy class I took in college was Intro to Logic, it explained this and much more.

#203859 by gbheil
Fri Feb 01, 2013 5:49 pm
An insanity defense ploy.
Anyone who kills innocence is insane.
And it should not change their facing the consequences of their actions.

#203860 by jimmydanger
Fri Feb 01, 2013 6:15 pm
Right George. Some would argue that you must be insane to murder, while our legal system would say that you're not insane if you know the difference between right and wrong at the time of the murder. There is now a push to reexamine juvenile life sentences on the basis that everyone deserves a second chance, especially the young. I have a hard time with that; the murder victim does not get a second chance, why should the murderer? On the other hand, everyone has done things as a juvenile that they wish they could undo as an adult. It's a tough question.

#203863 by PaperDog
Fri Feb 01, 2013 7:03 pm
jimmydanger wrote:This is known as a Causal Fallacy. It is common for arguments to conclude that one thing causes another. But the relation between cause and effect is a complex one. It is easy to make a mistake.

In general, we say that a cause C is the cause of an effect E if and only if:

Generally, if C occurs, then E will occur, and
Generally, if C does not occur, then E will not occur ether.

We say "generally" because there are always exceptions. For example, we say that striking the match causes the match to light, because:

Generally, when the match is struck, it lights (except when the match is dunked in water), and
Generally, when the match is not struck, it does not light (except when it is lit with a blowtorch).

Many writers also require that a causal statement be supported with a natural law. For example, the statement that "striking the match causes it to light" is supported by the principle that "friction produces heat, and heat produces fire". The following are causal fallacies:

Post Hoc (Because one thing follows another, it is held to cause the other)
Joint Effect (A purported cause and effect are both the effects of a joint cause)
Insignificant (The purported cause is insignificant compared to others)
Wrong Direction (The direction between cause and effect is reversed)
Complex Cause (The cause identified is only part of the entire cause)



In advanced Philosophy courses, they teach more in-depth about laws of probabilities. Causal Fallacies are flawed logic, not because of what they postulate, but because of the inference and assertions of conclusive certainty.
If we substitute expression of certainty with terms such as 'probable, likelihood, etc. then there is less misunderstanding and more clarification about the context of behaviors, actions/reactions in the universe of principals/agents.

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests