Nobody understands correlation vs causation

Home Forums Science & tech Nobody understands correlation vs causation

Viewing 25 reply threads
  • Author
    Posts
    • #119181
      Anonymous
      Guest

      >be a TA in Scientific Methods and Research
      >undergrads repeat "correlation isn’t causation" every lecture when prof asks them something
      >they have a test where they have to demonstrate their understanding of experiment design
      >they all confuse correlation and causation and can’t explain why a paper that confuses the two is flawed
      >when you ask them to explain how they understand the meaning of "correlation isn’t causation" you get blank stares in return
      Why does this happen repeatedly? Is this such a difficult concept? Why do people repeat this if they don’t understand what does it mean?

    • #119182
      Anonymous
      Guest

      >Students don’t understand concept
      Maybe they didn’t pay attention in class?

    • #119183
      Anonymous
      Guest

      >Dry, hot and sunny summer weather causes ice cream
      Defend this moronic claim.

      • #119184
        Anonymous
        Guest

        the sun is thereason we are here alive, so it’s fair to say that the sun caused the invention and production of ice cream

        • #119188
          Anonymous
          Guest

          Wrong. The invention of ice cream was no an inevitable consequence of the sun existing.

          • #119189
            Anonymous
            Guest

            >The invention of ice cream was no an inevitable consequence of the sun existing
            This comment is so unscientific its kind of sad. Ice cream is absolutely a concequence of the sun existing, and since I’ve cream exists it is also an inevitability.

            If you think otherwise you may as well fuck off to LULZ with the other shitzos.

            • #119190
              Anonymous
              Guest

              >I’ve cream
              dude…. this is a sfw board

            • #119191
              Anonymous
              Guest

              >inevitable
              You dropped this word.

              • #119194
                Anonymous
                Guest

                Go back

      • #119230
        Anonymous
        Guest

        The real redpill is dry, hot and sunny summers are exist to necessitate ice cream.

        • #119232
          Anonymous
          Guest

          >5 secrets big ice-cream doesn’t want you to know

    • #119185
      Anonymous
      Guest

      what is your faculty?

      • #119187
        Anonymous
        Guest

        Earth Sciences

    • #119186
      Anonymous
      Guest

      >Why does this happen repeatedly?
      Because they’re training cattle-brained midwits to become the new priest class.

    • #119192
      Anonymous
      Guest

      I think it’s supposed to be saying the sun causes ice cream to melt? (there’s the little drop).

    • #119193
      Anonymous
      Guest

      Because "Correlation isn’t causation." is mostly used as a cope when someone disagrees with a study. Somebody who has read more Kant and Hegel will have to help me out here, but isn’t the whole notion causation being different from correlation highly suspect, because if that was true it would be impossible to establish causality between any empirical phenomena?

      • #119195
        Anonymous
        Guest

        >if that was true it would be impossible to establish causality between any empirical phenomena?
        No. Correlation is often used as a hint towards causality, but we can determine causality without it. For example, mathematical proof can stand without any specific examples, and instead relies entirely on what is given.
        However, correlation is a valuable tool for identifying possible causal relationships, since you can often work backwards once you notice a pattern.

        Think of correlation as observation, and causation as the truth. Now, certainly, it can be hard to find the truth when there are no observations to guide you, but it is not necessary, nor does it make causation and correlation identical.

        • #119196
          Anonymous
          Guest

          Wrong.

          • #119197
            Anonymous
            Guest

            Not an argument

            • #119199
              Anonymous
              Guest

              Wrong.

        • #119198
          Anonymous
          Guest

          I should have been more specific. I think it’s debatable if mathematics can work without empirical observations, since you still need axioms for it to work. I was however mostly talking from the perspective of natural sciences, where there isn’t a purely a priori way of obtaining knowledge.

          • #119200
            Anonymous
            Guest

            >it’s debatable if mathematics can work without empirical observations, since you still need axioms for it to work
            Fair. I personally think that we don’t need empirical observation to establish mathematical axioms, since axioms are manufactured in my eyes. Cases like the Axiom of Choice are woke af more on the human mind than empirical observation.

            >I was however mostly talking from the perspective of natural sciences, where there isn’t a purely a priori way of obtaining knowledge
            It is true that our scientific knowledge mostly arises from those sorts of studies, but I still hesitate to call correlation and causation the same. It would probably be better to state that causation demands correlation, but not vice versa.
            i.e. causation [math]to[/math] correlation, but the converse does not hold

            • #119203
              Anonymous
              Guest

              How would you ever establish causation then though? I can’t think of single scientific theory that is not woke af on correlation data.
              Maybe Mr. Hume poster below is correct and causation does not exist.

              • #119204
                Anonymous
                Guest

                >How would you ever establish causation then though?
                Prior understanding and deconstruction of a relationship. Evidence by itself doesn’t explain anything; causation explains why a relationship exists.
                >I can’t think of single scientific theory that is not woke af on correlation data.
                And? Correlation data doesn’t necessarily support scientific theories. Correlation does not identify a causal relationship by itself.

                • #119221
                  Anonymous
                  Guest

                  …and the point is that causation is a spook and is by no means provable by any method provided in the thread.

                  If the students want to be epyc scientists they can just answer "causation was not proven" whenever the question is asked and technically they’re always correct. Causation isn’t provable, only falsifiable.

                  • #119223
                    Anonymous
                    Guest

                    >Causation isn’t provable, only falsifiable.
                    What kind of pseud bullshit is this? Are you going to tell me that we can’t prove gravity is the reason things fall? Or that food is cooked by adding heat to it?
                    Causation absolutely is provable.

                    • #119224
                      Anonymous
                      Guest

                      >Are you going to tell me that we can’t prove gravity is the reason things fall?
                      That’s tautological.
                      >Or that food is cooked by adding heat to it?
                      That’s also tautological.

                      • #119227
                        Anonymous
                        Guest

                        And what are the achievements of your fragile Imperium? It is a corpse rotting slowly from within while maggots writhe in its belly. It was built with the toil of heroes and giants, and now it is inhabited by frightened weaklings to whom the glories of those times are half-forgotten legends. I have forgotten nothing and my wisdom has expanded far beyond mere mortal frailties.

                      • #119228
                        Anonymous
                        Guest

                        >That’s tautological
                        A properly-established causal relationship is tautological by nature.

                      • #119229
                        Anonymous
                        Guest

                        You will take Pleasure in all that is, though your bodies will break and your souls be forfeit. You will do this, and do this gladly. For I am Slaanesh, most jealous of gods, most demanding of lovers, and My Thirst for you shall never be sated

                      • #119233
                        Anonymous
                        Guest

                        >properly established
                        Nah, you can give a solid theoretical and empirical basis for a non-trivial causal relationship, you just can’t prove them.

                      • #119234
                        Anonymous
                        Guest

                        >you can give a solid theoretical and empirical basis for a non-trivial causal relationship, you just can’t prove them.
                        >Non-trivial
                        So trivial causal relationships can be proven? If so, then causal relationships exist and are provable.

                    • #119241
                      Anonymous
                      Guest

                      >Are you going to tell me that we can’t prove gravity is the reason things fall? Or that food is cooked by adding heat to it?

                      Yes. Tell me a reason you believe that gravity is the reason things fall, or food is cooked by adding heat to it, that does NOT make the logical leap that correlation = causation. Since as we established at the start of the thread, only brainlets believe that.

                      • #119242
                        Anonymous
                        Guest

                        >food is cooked by adding heat to it
                        If you need proof for this, cook food and note how it gets hotter while cooking. Heat is being added to the food, and that causes the transformation.

                      • #119243
                        Anonymous
                        Guest

                        > Heat is being added to the food, and that causes the transformation.

                        So do ice cream sales cause sunburn? Whenever people buy more ice cream, people start getting sunburns, therefore ice cream sales cause sunburn.

                      • #119244
                        Anonymous
                        Guest

                        Don’t revert to a strawman when your arguments fail you.
                        Heat melts ice cream, and heat from the sun causes sunburn (thus the name).

                      • #119245
                        Anonymous
                        Guest

                        > Heat is being added to the food, and that causes the transformation.

                        So do ice cream sales cause sunburn? Whenever people buy more ice cream, people start getting sunburns, therefore ice cream sales cause sunburn.

                        Don’t revert to a strawman when your arguments fail you.
                        Heat melts ice cream, and heat from the sun causes sunburn (thus the name).

                        So explain to me how we know some third phenomenon isn’t causing heat to cook food. Prehaps the existence of heat causes the great cooking god Bobby Flay to be pleased, and he in turn cooks the food.

                        Also, why would establishing a correlation, that between cooking food and it getting hotter, prove anything? Is there any reason to believe because this occurs once during an experiment that it will continue to happen in the future? Even if we ran the experiment 100 times, and it happened 100 times, why do we believe this phenomenon should keep happening?

                        The only reason people usually give for this is that they usually notice that things that happen repeatedly keep happening, which is just a correlation, which is circular reasoning (this correlation is true because this other correlation is true). Truly belief in provable causation is just an irrational crypto-religious belief and not at all scientific or rational.

                      • #119248
                        Anonymous
                        Guest

                        >So explain to me how we know some third phenomenon isn’t causing heat to cook food. Prehaps the existence of heat causes the great cooking god Bobby Flay to be pleased, and he in turn cooks the food.
                        That just refers to lack of knowledge in the underlying processes. However, your counterexample still shows that the addition of heat causes the cooking of food – it simply asserts that the mechanism by which this occurs is through "the great cooking god Bobby Flay."

                        What we know is that, if you take food and apply heat to it, it will both warm up and transform (i.e. it is cooked). That is a causal relationship.
                        We may not know why adding heat to food cooks it, but that does not refute the causation we established via observation.

                      • #119254
                        Anonymous
                        Guest

                        What you’re establishing is not a causative mechanism, but a correlation between heating food and it getting cooked. Causation has not been established at all, you have no clue as to the underlying mechanism of heat resulting in food getting cooked, you merely understand the two are associated with eachother, that one happens to happen before the other.

                        Bridging the gap between correlation and causation is completely impossible. Correlation cannot transmute itself into causation, no matter how many times the correlation is observed, no matter how many other elements you eliminate. If you repeat an experiment 1000 times, you have no proof that the experiment would not fail on the 1001th try. If you repeat an experiment 1,000,000 times, you have no proof it would not fail on the 1,000,001th try. All you ultimately have is the correlation between experiments succeeding (once or repeatedly) and the experiment continuing to succeed in the future, and a combination of correlations cannot ever equal causation.

                      • #119255
                        Anonymous
                        Guest

                        I should have addressed this prior, since this point was painfully predictable.
                        You are presenting all observation as correlation, when observation can establish a causal relationship. Observation allows us to see the steps along a process, which we can verify through experimentation.
                        And, yes, our understanding of causation is often flawed. Experiments that counter our understanding show that we don’t have an accurate grasp of the process, but that doesn’t mean that those processes don’t exist, or that they can’t be proven to exist.
                        Additionally, you don’t need to know an underlying mechanism to know that one exists. Not everyone knows how breathing works, yet everyone knows that you can’t live without breathing. If you stop breathing, you will die. This applies to all humans.

                        And, yes, we rely heavily on correlation to identify causal relationships. However, that does not mean that causation does not exist. Saying that causation is extracted from correlations means that causation doesn’t exist is as ridiculous as saying the sky doesn’t exist because we can only see it. It’s a rejection of the forest for the trees.

                      • #119257
                        Anonymous
                        Guest

                        >Observation allows us to see the steps along a process, which we can verify through experimentation.

                        How? All these experiments I’ve been hearing about are just establishing that a correlation between two things existed once at a given time which falls far short of proving causation.

                        >that doesn’t mean that those processes don’t exist, or that they can’t be proven to exist.

                        How can they be proven to exist?

                        >everyone knows that you can’t live without breathing.

                        How do they know that?

                        >Saying that causation is extracted from correlations means that causation doesn’t exist is as ridiculous as saying the sky doesn’t exist because we can only see it.

                        Prove that the sky exists. There’s a whole lot of "ARE YOU SERRIOUSSSLY saying that cooking doesn’t exist? That the sky doesn’t exist? Lmao everybody knows that" which is just appealing to a ton of non-arguments.

                        >that does not mean that causation does not exist.

                        The point was that causation isn’t provable and only falsifiable. Not that causation does not exist. The scientists who believe that they’re actually *proving* causation are total and utter pseuds just going through the motions that their teachers taught them without ever truly understanding what the fuck it is they’re doing. None of this shit is THAT hard to understand.

                        You can believe in axioms and then, woke af on those axioms, apply deductive reasoning to establish causation. You can even without belief falsify causation. You come up with ideas which are highly falsifiable and promote ideas as impressive because they’re highly falsfiable ideas which nobody has been able to falsify. What you can’t do is actually prove causation.

                      • #119258
                        Anonymous
                        Guest

                        >How? All these experiments I’ve been hearing about are just establishing that a correlation between two things existed once at a given time which falls far short of proving causation.
                        Again, you are stating that all observation is correlation.
                        >How can they be proven to exist?
                        As you say later, the axiomatic approach.
                        >How do they know that?
                        Because they die if they stop breathing.
                        >There’s a whole lot of "ARE YOU SERRIOUSSSLY saying that cooking doesn’t exist? That the sky doesn’t exist? Lmao everybody knows that" which is just appealing to a ton of non-arguments.
                        No, it’s stating obvious causal relationships and using them to demonstrate that causation must exist, which is a very informal proof of causation.

                        >The point was that causation isn’t provable and only falsifiable. Not that causation does not exist.
                        Your point was that causation can’t be proven to exist. If causation exists, then your point is incorrect.
                        >You can believe in axioms and then, woke af on those axioms, apply deductive reasoning to establish causation.
                        Then causation exists so long as you believe in the axiomatic method as legitimate.
                        >You come up with ideas which are highly falsifiable and promote ideas as impressive because they’re highly falsfiable ideas which nobody has been able to falsify.
                        If your so-called "Highly falsifiable ideas" are such that "nobody has been able to falsify" them, then they aren’t highly falsifiable.
                        Again, what I’m seeing here is that you are questioning logic in its entirety, not just causation.

                        >What you can’t do is actually prove causation.
                        If you refuse to acknowledge observation and experimentation, then of course. At this point, your argumentation is like denying the existence of light because you gouged out your eyes.

                      • #119259
                        Anonymous
                        Guest

                        >observation can establish a causal relationship.
                        This still requires moving goalposts to further sets of "correlation=causality" circular reasoning which we must rely on to claim causality, albeit there is probably far far greater levels of confidence with those other sets. Other anon is correct but he’s being a scrotebrain about arguing it.
                        As an example I"m pretty sure in theoretical physics and cosmology they require 5 sigma verification in experiments before something, like a particle detection, is officially accepted as causal. There’s still that 1 in millions chance the experiments could be wrong and no causal relationship actually exists and the results were just coincidence, but it’s the best humankind can reasonably expect and it’s pretty darn good and certainly "should" never result in false conclusions of causality in our lifetimes if experiments were set up correctly.
                        Something like dropping a ball and expecting gravity to pull it to earth has immeasurably greater than 5 sigma confidence, but it’s still fundamentally the same concept. Humans observing gravity throughout human history "could" just all be a coincidence in a very hypothetical sense and thus gravity "might" not be real. But it’s unlikely beyond comprehension, therefore we infer a ball falls because gravity caused it to fall and never think twice about it.

                      • #119261
                        Anonymous
                        Guest

                        >There’s still that 1 in millions chance the experiments could be wrong and no causal relationship actually exists and the results were just coincidence, but it’s the best humankind can reasonably expect and it’s pretty darn good and certainly "should" never result in false conclusions of causality in our lifetimes if experiments were set up correctly.
                        That at least is the case in statistics, but what I find with respect to experimentation is that those 1 in a million occurrences tend to refute our current understanding of a causal relationship, rather than the relationship in itself. In other words, there is something else going on that changes the results from what we might expect.

                        >Humans observing gravity throughout human history "could" just all be a coincidence in a very hypothetical sense and thus gravity "might" not be real.
                        Fair. But that’s the fault of human interpretation rather than the fact that causation doesn’t exist. Really, I think the whole axiomatic method is subject to that very same vulnerability, wherein all of the logic we’ve built might just be one massive coincidence. I’d even call causation one of the axioms we have. As a result of that, most "proofs" of causation will appear circular or, as in my case, rely on specific examples that we can take as given.

                        Also, in retrospect, I think my use of gravity as an example was foolish, since it’s one of those concepts we still don’t comprehend all that well.

      • #119208
        Anonymous
        Guest

        What? No, there are more indicators of causality beyond correlation. Like temporal dimension (cause should precede effect) and manipulation (effect disappears when cause is removed), control of third variables etc

    • #119201
      Anonymous
      Guest

      They aren’t understanding it because you aren’t explaining it correctly. Rather than "correlation isn’t causation", you should say "causation straight up doesn’t freaking exist and has no basis in the senses."

    • #119202
      Anonymous
      Guest

      95% of people in college have no freaking business being there. This goes for the professors as well.

      • #119206
        Anonymous
        Guest

        this. The students don’t understand simply because they are morons that should not be wasting time in university

    • #119205
      Anonymous
      Guest

      Midwits treat reddshit as a source of truth.
      Like NPCs they repeat what reddshit bots say and now we have living bots

    • #119207
      Anonymous
      Guest

      >undergrad
      That’s the time stupids are selected out of the courses, usually by statistics
      I don’t see anything wrong

    • #119209
      Anonymous
      Guest

      >Why does this happen repeatedly? Is this such a difficult concept? Why do people repeat this if they don’t understand what does it mean?
      George Orwell called it doublethink, maybe we should start bringing that term back eh?

    • #119210
      Anonymous
      Guest

      >Why does this happen repeatedly? Is this such a difficult concept? Why do people repeat this if they don’t understand what does it mean?
      Brainwashing them since childhood that "fossils that look the same must be related" kinda doesn’t help. A correlation in a few bone fragment shapes that look sorta humanoid is mindlessly concluded to be caused by a common ancestor etc. No other evidence needed whatsoever.

      • #119211
        Anonymous
        Guest

        the fossil record is very imperfect, what do you suggest einstein?

        • #119214
          Anonymous
          Guest

          Perhaps that paleontologists should do less pretending and speculating. Poor evidence being all the evidence you have is no excuse to pretend like you have good evidence.

          • #119215
            Anonymous
            Guest

            but they do stats and samples, refute that

            • #119222
              Anonymous
              Guest

              I won’t refute that, because it’s true. But so what?

        • #119231
          Anonymous
          Guest

          >the fossil record is very imperfect, what do you suggest einstein?
          Relegate the macro-evolutionary interpretation of the fossil record back to weak hypothesis status where it belongs, just like we would correctly and logically do with anything else where the evidence is "very imperfect."

          but they do stats and samples, refute that

          >but they do stats and samples, refute that
          haha we literally can’t because they don’t release original data. You just religiously take their word for it and assume they weren’t cherry picking data or erroneously interpreting it. In the rare case original data is released to the public bad things tend to happen that otherwise would never have come to light:

          https://gizmodo.com/the-controversy-over-homo-naledi-is-actually-a-good-thi-1738572110

          Most of paleontology is a complete circlejerk where reproducibility is laughed at and basically impossible.

    • #119212
      Anonymous
      Guest

      >>when you ask them to explain how they understand the meaning of "correlation isn’t causation" you get blank stares in return
      >Why does this happen repeatedly?
      Mantras do not impart understanding.

      Never have.

    • #119213
      Anonymous
      Guest

      It’s unironically a mantra propagated by reddit or tumblr tier scrotes who accustom themselves to turning a blind eye to evidence which stares them in the face while being very inappropriate for their worldview. So they get used to saying oh no that can’t be right, correlation isn’t causation, so let’s keep looking for some other way to explain this.

    • #119216
      Anonymous
      Guest

      Correlation doesn’t equal causation:

      The most often used example is as follows: When two or more variables correlate, you may be tempted to conclude that the correlation is due to a relationship between the variables. In this instance (homicide rates go up when more ice cream is sold), there’s no connection between ice cream and homicide at all: the causation is actually between temperature and ice cream, and temperature and homicide.

      So from the above, what actually has been found is: A PROXY
      Proxies are used all the time in science. Thickness of Ice deposit layers are used as a proxy for temperature. Temperature was not measured by humans a million years ago, but ice core climate proxies are a good way to get the temperature for those time periods. Tree ring proxies are used as well.

      So from the first example, if the only data available to a scientist was ice cream sales, they could still predict homicide rates woke af on the data. The proxy would STILL HAVE PREDICTIVE POWER. Proxies can be problematic though. If there were an Ice-Cream expo and a three month ice cream fare, that would skew results. But proxies are still important and should not be dismissed.

      So how does correlation = causation?
      Explinative power.
      In other words, do you have a logical narrative to explain how this correlation results in causation?

      • #119218
        Anonymous
        Guest

        If I were to tell you that there is a strong correlation between annual rainfall and average dam levels, you would say of course there is.
        How did you get there? Rain falls, flows into tributaries and end up in dams. Its obvious and logical. You accept the correlation immediately because of the logical explanation. So when someone argues: Correlation <> causation, do you have an explanation that can account for how the two measured variables are related?

        But having an explanation is not enough.
        Are there competing theories?
        Are they more plausible?
        How strong is the original correlation?
        Is it statistically significant?

        In quantitative trading analysis, correlations are constantly generated by Quants (Quantitative analysts) But what has the bread price in China have to do with Bicycle sales in Newark? There’s a correlation (No I haven’t actually checked its just an off the cuff example) It may be a proxy. It may be a proxy of a proxy ^ 60. Most Quants will not even try to explain what’s happening. They just know its a proxy and that it may hold, but when economic or other circumstances change the correlation may disappear. So you’ve got a correlation, but using it to predict Bicycle sales in Newark is: USE AT YOUR OWN RISK

        The conclusion is this: The difference between correlation <> causation and this correlation = causation is:
        Is there a logical explanation for the correlation?
        Are there competing theories?
        How plausible are the alternatives?
        Is there other evidence to support the correlation?
        and
        Could it still be valid as a good proxy?

      • #119225
        Anonymous
        Guest

        If I were to tell you that there is a strong correlation between annual rainfall and average dam levels, you would say of course there is.
        How did you get there? Rain falls, flows into tributaries and end up in dams. Its obvious and logical. You accept the correlation immediately because of the logical explanation. So when someone argues: Correlation <> causation, do you have an explanation that can account for how the two measured variables are related?

        But having an explanation is not enough.
        Are there competing theories?
        Are they more plausible?
        How strong is the original correlation?
        Is it statistically significant?

        In quantitative trading analysis, correlations are constantly generated by Quants (Quantitative analysts) But what has the bread price in China have to do with Bicycle sales in Newark? There’s a correlation (No I haven’t actually checked its just an off the cuff example) It may be a proxy. It may be a proxy of a proxy ^ 60. Most Quants will not even try to explain what’s happening. They just know its a proxy and that it may hold, but when economic or other circumstances change the correlation may disappear. So you’ve got a correlation, but using it to predict Bicycle sales in Newark is: USE AT YOUR OWN RISK

        The conclusion is this: The difference between correlation <> causation and this correlation = causation is:
        Is there a logical explanation for the correlation?
        Are there competing theories?
        How plausible are the alternatives?
        Is there other evidence to support the correlation?
        and
        Could it still be valid as a good proxy?

        tl;dr: statistics is modern day divination driven by mathematica superstition rather than by feeling and finance is scammers scamming you, each other and themselves

      • #119239
        Anonymous
        Guest

        cute feet hehe

    • #119217
      Anonymous
      Guest

      Bad teachers honestly. They’re to blame.

    • #119219
      Anonymous
      Guest

      College students (children) often fall for the easiest path to intelligence.

      I admit I called everything Nietzschean despite having read very little my first year or two of college.

      • #119220
        Anonymous
        Guest

        Kafkaesque

    • #119226
      Anonymous
      Guest

      It’s reddit response conditioning and they don’t understand any of the substance behind it. Put another way it is monkey see monkey do, they’ve seen it work as a "valid" response so use it themselves when there is something they don’t like or need an explanation for.
      It’s a complete lack of understanding of what it means, what it can imply, and what the corrolary means and implies. I think the root misunderstanding is that correlation gets completely dismissed when the phrase is blurted out, even though it’s obviously beings accepted that two events/variables are correlated.

    • #119235
      Anonymous
      Guest

      >correlation isn’t causation
      nice story sis but no one actually believes correlation doesn’t equal causation. what people always say is that correlation doesn’t NECESSARILY equal causation.
      there is simply no one rule for all. you have to look at each case with a different scope. the methodology used in synthetic chemistry doesn’t work for quantitative economics and vice versa. in synthetic chemistry an experiment working 1 time out of 100 tries isn’t null, in economics it is

      • #119236
        Anonymous
        Guest

        >correlation isn’t causation
        >correlation doesn’t NECESSARILY equal causation

        These two statements are both correct

        • #119237
          Anonymous
          Guest

          correlation could imply causation

    • #119238
      Anonymous
      Guest

      There is neither correlation nor causation. The world is a bunch of complicated feedback loops.

    • #119240
      Anonymous
      Guest

      They’ve been taught the buzz phrase but don’t understand it’s underlying meaning. You’d be amazed how many brainlets there are at university

    • #119246
      Anonymous
      Guest

      >collegiate level "students" don’t know what a syllogism is
      pic is them getting wasted every thursday, friday, saturday and sunday

    • #119247
      Anonymous
      Guest

      >ITT
      >WOKE believers in causation

      Lmao why are soientists so pathetic compared to philosopher chads?

      • #119249
        Anonymous
        Guest

        >Philosopher chads
        Good joke, considering that philosophy has contributed nothing to modern society in the past 100 years. Even meme disciplines like Sociology have been more impactful.

        • #119250
          Anonymous
          Guest

          How would you define a meme discipline?

          • #119251
            Anonymous
            Guest

            Sociology
            Gender Studies
            The gamut

            • #119252
              Anonymous
              Guest

              Define, not name examples

              • #119253
                Anonymous
                Guest

                Joke disciplines that nobody takes seriously. I’d hope you’re capable of understanding that much.

              • #119262
                Anonymous
                Guest

                That’s the definition.

    • #119256
      Anonymous
      Guest

      sunburns cause ice cream, redart.

    • #119260
      Anonymous
      Guest

      Earth: Aliens’ Genetic Experiment

      https://youtu.be/aP_NFUlYbz8

Viewing 25 reply threads
  • You must be logged in to reply to this topic.