= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
satt comments on The Pre-Historical Fallacy - 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 (30)
The former is an empirical claim of a strong pattern which, if true, requires explanation. The latter is a hypothesis that explains it, makes falsifiable predictions, and is useful if true.
Are you saying the specific hypothesis is problematic, or that the whole logical structure is?
To prove the second statement, we just need to find gene variants that are strongly correlated with religious beliefs. ETA: and manipulate them experimentally to determine the direction of causality, or observe the effect of natural mutations.
No, the second statement hinges on a causal claim, so correlations alone can't prove it unless supplemented with strong causal assumptions. Gene variants being correlated with religious beliefs is consistent with three different causal hypotheses: (1) gene variants influence religious belief, (2) religious belief influences gene variants, and/or (3) gene variants and religious belief have some common cause. Correlations only tell us that at least one of the hypotheses is true; they don't allow us to conclude that hypothesis 1 is correct.
ETA: [does Fonzie thumbs-up] aaaayyyy!
It don't know why this got downvoted, as it is completely correct.
As a practical example, consider the correlation between intelligence and Ashkenazic ancestry, and how that arose, with respect to those three alternatives.