= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
Stuart_Armstrong comments on [LINK] If correlation doesn’t imply causation, then what does? - Less Wrong Discussion
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
= 783df68a0f980790206b9ea87794c5b6)
Loading…= b715d02e85f7b3b4ae65ca3d3e450868)
Subscribe to RSS Feed
Powered by Reddit
= f037147d6e6c911a85753b9abdedda8d)
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
Comments (23)
Correlation may not imply causation - but it is highly correlated with causation! In fact, the most likely theory is that correlation causes causation... ;-)
That last sentence? Ow.
If A causes B, then artificially inducing A results in (or increases the frequency of, etc.) B. I am not really sure what you are trying to say, nor what "most likely theory" here means (under what setup?)
I realize you are being glib, but this is important!
My impression was that it was an absurdity for the purpose of satire.
It is what's known as a joke - it has no hidden wisdom or meaning.
I think part of what is amusing here is that this joke is a serious theory for some folks.
Like Rupert Sheldrake?