5,580
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 20:
Line 20: + + + + + + + +
→Removed "poor"
:: 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)
:: 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)
:::Please don't make accusations; you know I'm not a liberal, and it's kind of insulting to insinuate such. If you aren't going to allow discussion of the content then please lock down the page to save me the embarrasment.
:::I read the claims again and I guess I see where you are coming from. What I meant was that you can weaken a correlation by a good counterexample. I'm not sure if you can completely disprove it, but you are probably right there, as well.
:::"Causation" depends on how the English is structured. If you mean by "causation" that something is definitely or is assumed to be a causation, then you are right, it cannot be disproved by a counter example, because it is a causation and that's that. I took "causation" to mean the more general "claim of causation", since there really are no definite causations, in a technical sense. In this case, a claim of causation can be weakened by a counterexample, and even disproved, if the counterexample is good enough.
:::Off the top of my head this is what I mean: '''claim of causation''': ''All crimes are caused by hate.'' '''Counterexample''': ''This crime was caused by poverty.'' It's a poor example that I came up with off the top of my head, but clearly you can see that some claims of causation can be disproved by counterexamples. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 18:19, 18 February 2008 (EST)