The rooster example is make clear this is not a logical statement. An exaggeration to provide clarity because our brain is always susceptible to logical fallacies.
You recognize this, but you seem to want to hedge it. Correlation does not always equal? It's simply not evidence of at all. You need other evidence. You rightly conclude that all that remains is a possibility that other evidence exists.
But that is just following one logical fallacy with another. Post hoc ergo propter hoc and then absence of evidence.
Actually, you're wrong. What @TruthBot0001 is saying is that some correlation is from causation, and that's true. But there will also be times where correlation is not from causation. So basically, correlation is evidence, it's just not proof.
That's not really saying much is it? It could be a 1 in million chance
It's weak evidence.
An example. People were touting this recent trafficking bust in California as evidence of a change in Washington with the new administration, but they didn't know the same operation was run at this time for a few year prior.
Many points of evidence make up convincing proof. For instance, James Alefantis having satanic art on his Instagram doesn't prove he's in a satanic pedophile cult, but it's evidence. Bring up enough evidence and you will reach the point of proof.
view the rest of the comments →
AreWeSure ago
The rooster example is make clear this is not a logical statement. An exaggeration to provide clarity because our brain is always susceptible to logical fallacies.
You recognize this, but you seem to want to hedge it. Correlation does not always equal? It's simply not evidence of at all. You need other evidence. You rightly conclude that all that remains is a possibility that other evidence exists.
But that is just following one logical fallacy with another. Post hoc ergo propter hoc and then absence of evidence.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Post_hoc_ergo_propter_hoc Absence of evidence
atheist4thecause ago
Actually, you're wrong. What @TruthBot0001 is saying is that some correlation is from causation, and that's true. But there will also be times where correlation is not from causation. So basically, correlation is evidence, it's just not proof.
reasonedandinformed ago
AreWeSure is a known CTR troll.
AreWeSure ago
what's it evidence of?
atheist4thecause ago
The possibility of causation.
AreWeSure ago
That's not really saying much is it? It could be a 1 in million chance
It's weak evidence.
An example. People were touting this recent trafficking bust in California as evidence of a change in Washington with the new administration, but they didn't know the same operation was run at this time for a few year prior.
reasonedandinformed ago
CTR Troll.
grlldcheese ago
It's super convenient that he posts so often.
Today some totally deplorable asshole went through 50 of his posts and now he has a -26 ccp.
Pretty sure that limits his posting ability.
atheist4thecause ago
The fact is you were wrong to say he was wrong.
AreWeSure ago
I think you might be quibbling over proof, but the larger point that you need more evidence stands.
atheist4thecause ago
Many points of evidence make up convincing proof. For instance, James Alefantis having satanic art on his Instagram doesn't prove he's in a satanic pedophile cult, but it's evidence. Bring up enough evidence and you will reach the point of proof.
AreWeSure ago
Fair point. I think he was hedging on how weak the evidence was, and I wrote my post like it was no evidence at all not just weak evidence.
I've been known to nitpick a point as well.