Siteadmin, Bureaucrats, Check users, nsAm_Govt_101RO, nsAm_Govt_101RW, nsAm_Govt_101_ta, nsJudgesRO, nsJudgesRW, nsJudges_talkRO, nsJudges_talkRW, nsTeam2RO, nsTeam2RW, nsTeam2_talkRO, nsTeam2_talkRW, oversight, Administrators
125,794
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 18:
Line 18: + +
→Removed "poor": reply
A correlation absolutely can be disproved by a good counterexample. (Correlations are, by themselves, rather weak arguments anyway.) It's only ''poor'' counterexamples that could be considered an illogical refutation of a correlation. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 01:01, 18 February 2008 (EST)
A correlation absolutely can be disproved by a good counterexample. (Correlations are, by themselves, rather weak arguments anyway.) It's only ''poor'' counterexamples that could be considered an illogical refutation of a correlation. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 01:01, 18 February 2008 (EST)
:Ok, causation can also be disproved by a good counterexample. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 17:53, 18 February 2008 (EST)
:Ok, causation can also be disproved by a good counterexample. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 17:53, 18 February 2008 (EST)
:: Thanks for illustrating an embrace of [[liberal logic]], HelpJazz. Can you explain how to back up your statements?--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:09, 18 February 2008 (EST)