Visitors Now:
Total Visits:
Total Stories:
Profile image
By FalkenBlog (Reporter)
Contributor profile | More stories
Story Views

Now:
Last Hour:
Last 24 Hours:
Total:

A Deep Understanding

Friday, October 5, 2012 1:40
% of readers think this story is Fact. Add your two cents.

(Before It's News)

B4INREMOTE-aHR0cDovLzEuYnAuYmxvZ3Nwb3QuY29tLy1sMXNleDFqTzZNVS9VRzRkVTJ5SnpjSS9BQUFBQUFBQUNPby9PcVB6Q3QyVXRVWS9zNDAwL3N0YXRzLnBuZw== 

There’s an interesting article on Slate by someone miffed at all those ‘correlation doesn’t impy causation’ slams common in retorts.  He makes the good point that, while not proof, correlation is suggestive, and consistent with causation.  If you want to be a pedant nothing non-tautological can be proven (see Hume’s problem of induction). It reminds me of the saying ‘absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.’ This is wrong. It’s not proof of absence, but from a bayesian perspective, it should increase one’s belief in absence.



Source:

Report abuse

Comments

Your Comments
Question   Razz  Sad   Evil  Exclaim  Smile  Redface  Biggrin  Surprised  Eek   Confused   Cool  LOL   Mad   Twisted  Rolleyes   Wink  Idea  Arrow  Neutral  Cry   Mr. Green

Top Stories
Recent Stories

Register

Newsletter

Email this story
Email this story

If you really want to ban this commenter, please write down the reason:

If you really want to disable all recommended stories, click on OK button. After that, you will be redirect to your options page.