>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, new_morning_blank_slate
<no_reply@> wrote:
> >
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB <no_reply@> wrote:
> > > An example, directly related to theater attendance.
> > > The last time I was in L.A., I wanted to see a
> > > movie so I went to Westwood, the area near UCLA
> > > just filled (in my memory) with bustling crowds,
> > > nice restaurants, and movie theaters. Well, I got
> > > there, parked, and started walking around. There
> > > were no crowds, even though it was a Friday night.
> > > The restaurants were near-empty. So were the movie
> > > theaters; no waiting on line to get in, and when
> > > you did, you found yourself sitting in a half-
> > > empty theater.
> > >
> > > I couldn't help but wonder why, so I asked.
> >
> > A distiction between magical thinkers and rational thinkers is the
> > former tend to far more mistake correlation for causation. As Kurtz
> > points out, the corrleation of a prayer with a good outcome, does not
> > indicate causation. Only correlation.
> >
> [...]
> >
> > Magical thinking, "knowing" that correlated things are causal --
> > especially when its felt to be "self-evident" are not solely the
> > domain of the religious right, or uneducated. It permeates society.
> > Even this list.
> >
>
> Scientists are by no means immune to this. The scientific method,
and the cultivation rationalist mindsets -- characterized by not
falling for logical fallacies -- something every college education
should do -- but clearly does not.
A major logical fallacy is "post hoc ergo propter hoc" (after this
therefore because of this). Such is mistaking correlation with
causation. A sequence is a correlation of events over time.
Corrleation with a time lag. Sequences don't establish causality any
more than correlations do. That two events are correleated (including
lags) does not make a case for causation. That is the whole point of
my prior post.
> is supposed to reduce
> the incidence,
>but all theories assume _propter hoc_
> so there's always the risk of the _post
> hoc_ fallacy.
That does not follow very tightly (I won't stoop to using the latin).
Theories are built to show causal relations. To predict that i) when A
happens, B will happen, and ii) when A does not happen B does not
happen, and iii) When B happens A did not occur prior to it.
All three must occur. Its laughable how many poeple offer up theories
that cover i) but not ii) or iii). "When I strum the guitar at dawn,
the sun rises ergo the guitar raises the sun." while a nice poetic
image in Black Orphesus, is not a valid theory. That the guitar raises
the sun is not self-evident (as analogies to the type of thing many
magical thinkers claim), but self-deception.
If one is competent to present a theory of causation that meets these
three criteria, and develops a good track record of prediction, then
why would the theorist fall back into midieval magical thinking and
start thinking post hoc correlations are explanatory and causal? To
me, thats silly.
Post hoc reasoning is the basis for and magical thinking,
superstitions, midieval, religious and tribal beliefs. It seems
magical thinking that one competent in discerning causal relations
will fall back into superstition.
But, sure, on your point of "danger" -- in the flurry of hypothesis
generation, many correlations may be thrown on the table. In the
excitment of such, many may guess at causal relations. Thats the
purpose of hypotheses generation. But few such correlated factors
survive the exam. And few competent theorists will cling to the corpse
of a strong correlation which has been rejected as causative.
To subscribe, send a message to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Or go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/
and click 'Join This Group!'
SPONSORED LINKS
Religion and spirituality | Maharishi mahesh yogi |
YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS
- Visit your group "FairfieldLife" on the web.
- To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
- Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.