Since I heard you guys don't like empirical evidence...

[Smiling_Dave]

Deep stuff, Autolykos, but I have a q.

Once we grant it helps making predictions, who cares about the rest?

The real thrust of the argument that corr. does not imply caus. is that the predictions won’t be accurate, either.

[Autolykos]

No, the real thrust behind “correlation does not imply causation” is that asserting otherwise is a logical fallacy.

[Smiling_Dave]

No, the real thrust behind “correlation does not imply causation” is that asserting otherwise is a logical fallacy.

If that were the case, then it could be easily salvaged. Admit it’s not a logical thing, just an inductive tool.

[ClaytonB]

Correlation can never substitute for causation. Correlations without a causal theory simply tell us that there is a cause which we don’t understand.

Clayton -

[Autolykos]

@Smiling Dave

If that were the case, then it could be easily salvaged. Admit it’s not a logical thing, just an inductive tool.

I really don’t understand what you’re trying to say here. How is cum hoc ergo propter hoc not a logical fallacy?

[mustang19]

Generally, getting hold of 20 thousand banana flies and then doing the biological equivalent of smashing them together again and again in a controlled environment isn’t all that complex.
Molecular scale interactions can be easily observed repeatedly in a laboratory. (Not ‘easy’ easily, but far easier than repeating 250 years of history while changing only a single parameter).

The same could be said for behaviorism and microeconomics. Seeing how people react in what is essentially a laboratory environment is common in microeconomic experiments using random samples and controlled environments.

Medicine is again a science that can easily have experiments repeated in a laboratory.

Often, not at all. Especially psychiatry.

I get the impression some people here aren’t going to outright deny global warming, but don’t think rising sea levels and widespread desertification are much of a big deal. The fact is, within the climate science field there’s practically a consensus that it’s occurring and anthropogenic carbon emissions are responsible. Rejecting climate models because of the fact that they use empirical methods- I can see why you’d say that. But it’s ignoring that induction is necessary just to get by in everyday life and interact with people.

[Smiling_Dave]

Autolykos.

I’m saying that we can abandon it as a logical argument, because it is a fallacy. But who cares? It works. We can use it.

We do the same thing all the time with inductive reasoning [not to be confused with math induction]. If we see F=ma time and again, even though there is no logical reason that F will equal ma tomorrow, we go ahead and risk our lives blithely by assuming it will be [by crossing a bridge, say].

Same thing with Mises assumption that we have free will. He said he assumes it because it works, meaning helps one to predict accurately.

So if correlation was reliable predictive tool, then the heck with logic. Just use it.

[ClaytonB]

global warming [isn’t] much of a big deal

Exactly. Leading climate expert in Germany. Economist from Denmark. Professor Emeritus from the US. Ditto for this Nobel Laureate. And then there’s these University of East Anglia asshats.

Of course, I’m sure all these guys who don’t accept that AGW is “incontrovertible” or the most important problem on Earth are on Exxon’s payroll, just like me.

Clayton -

[mustang19]

Okey dokey. And Gore built a beach house because he knew he was making it all up.

Well, I don’t see any a priori reason why ape must evolve into man, why the sun has to come up tomorrow, or why child porn should be illegal. But that’s just me.

[MMMark]

Wed. 12/06/06 13:56 EDT
.post #160
[url=Since I heard you guys don't like empirical evidence... - #126 by mustang19]

@mustang19

[/url]The fact is, within the climate science field there’s practically a consensus that it’s occurring and anthropogenic carbon emissions are responsible

from Aliens Cause Global Warming (source):

@Michael Crichton

I want to pause here and talk about this notion of consensus, and the rise of what has been called consensus science. I regard consensus science as an extremely pernicious development that ought to be stopped cold in its tracks. Historically, the claim of consensus has been the first refuge of scoundrels; it is a way to avoid debate by claiming that the matter is already settled. Whenever you hear the consensus of scientists agrees on something or other, reach for your wallet, because you’re being had.

Let’s be clear: the work of science has nothing whatever to do with consensus. Consensus is the business of politics. Science, on the contrary, requires only one investigator who happens to be right, which means that he or she has results that are verifiable by reference to the real world.

In science consensus is irrelevant. What is relevant is reproducible results. The greatest scientists in history are great precisely because they broke with the consensus. There is no such thing as consensus science. If it’s consensus, it isn’t science. If it’s science, it isn’t consensus. Period.
.
.
.
Finally, I would remind you to notice where the claim of consensus is invoked. Consensus is invoked only in situations where the science is not solid enough.

Nobody says the consensus of scientists agrees that E=mc2. Nobody says the consensus is that the sun is 93 million miles away. It would never occur to anyone to speak that way.

[mustang19]

Those are all good points. Alchemists still disagree on the periodic table.

But if you want the evidence, it’s there on the internet. I’m not even going to argue about it. I know that Al Gore is my messiah.