Correlation and causation

Split from 'Who Made God?' thread

Anything that doesn't fit anywhere else below.

Moderators: Calilasseia, ADParker

Re: Correlation and causation

#181  Postby Hermit » Feb 11, 2020 3:30 pm

Image
God is the mysterious veil under which we hide our ignorance of the cause. - Léo Errera


God created the universe
God just exists
User avatar
Hermit
THREAD STARTER
 
Posts: 3577
Age: 66
Male

Print view this post

Ads by Google


Re: Correlation and causation

#182  Postby Fallible » Feb 11, 2020 3:35 pm

:tehe:
She battled through in every kind of tribulation,
She revelled in adventure and imagination.
She never listened to no hater, liar,
Breaking boundaries and chasing fire.
Oh, my my! Oh my, she flies!
User avatar
Fallible
RS Donator
 
Name: Alice Pooper
Posts: 50763
Age: 47
Female

Country: Engerland na na
Canada (ca)
Print view this post

Re: Correlation and causation

#183  Postby newolder » Feb 11, 2020 4:39 pm

GrahamH wrote:
eduardo wrote:
Thommo wrote:I don't think equivocating between "immediate cause" and "cause" is going to help.

Nonetheless cells with activated oncogenes and no blood supply don't cause cancer. Other conditions also must be present or absent.

That is true. It was what I was saying that there is no clear cause for cancer.
It is not simple like falling under a bus or off a ladder.


What's the clear cause for falling under a bus?


What's the clear cause of your deliberate obtuseness?

Q. What does falling under a bus or off a ladder cause?

A. A redistribution of matter and radiation.
I am, somehow, less interested in the weight and convolutions of Einstein’s brain than in the near certainty that people of equal talent have lived and died in cotton fields and sweatshops. - Stephen J. Gould
User avatar
newolder
 
Name: Albert Ross
Posts: 7029
Male

Country: Feudal Estate number 9
Print view this post

Re: Correlation and causation

#184  Postby GrahamH » Feb 11, 2020 5:53 pm

newolder wrote:
GrahamH wrote:
eduardo wrote:
Thommo wrote:I don't think equivocating between "immediate cause" and "cause" is going to help.

Nonetheless cells with activated oncogenes and no blood supply don't cause cancer. Other conditions also must be present or absent.

That is true. It was what I was saying that there is no clear cause for cancer.
It is not simple like falling under a bus or off a ladder.


What's the clear cause for falling under a bus?


What's the clear cause of your deliberate obtuseness?

Q. What does falling under a bus or off a ladder cause?

A. A redistribution of matter and radiation.


Hermit understood it.

What's the cause of your obtuseness?

Q. What does not falling under a bus or off a ladder cause?

A. A redistribution of matter and radiation.


We could say falling under a bus "causes death", but not always, and if the effect is death there are lots of contributory "causes" to it in such a case, including: the proximity of the bus at that moment, the speed of the bus, the faller's position, some trip hazard, something inhibiting the faller from staying upright, etc, etc, etc. We could easily show a statistical correlation between falling under busses and dying, but then we can show that for smoking as well so busses and ladders are no use as counter examples to smoking.
Why do you think that?
GrahamH
 
Posts: 20385

Print view this post

Re: Correlation and causation

#185  Postby newolder » Feb 11, 2020 6:52 pm

GrahamH wrote:...

Hermit understood it.

Good for Hermit (an equally obtuse poster in this topic).

What's the cause of your obtuseness?

Where was I obtuse?

Q. What does not falling under a bus or off a ladder cause?

A. A redistribution of matter and radiation.

How does a static situation redistribute matter?

We could say falling under a bus "causes death", but not always, and if the effect is death there are lots of contributory "causes" to it in such a case, including: the proximity of the bus at that moment, the speed of the bus, the faller's position, some trip hazard, something inhibiting the faller from staying upright, etc, etc, etc. We could easily show a statistical correlation between falling under busses and dying, but then we can show that for smoking as well so busses and ladders are no use as counter examples to smoking.

Is this supposed to be a confession that you were obtuse previously? Where did I write that "falling" is a useful counterexample to "smoking"? Oh, that's right, I didn't and you are simply carrying on with obtuse posting.
I am, somehow, less interested in the weight and convolutions of Einstein’s brain than in the near certainty that people of equal talent have lived and died in cotton fields and sweatshops. - Stephen J. Gould
User avatar
newolder
 
Name: Albert Ross
Posts: 7029
Male

Country: Feudal Estate number 9
Print view this post

Re: Correlation and causation

#186  Postby GrahamH » Feb 11, 2020 7:00 pm

newolder wrote:
GrahamH wrote:...

Hermit understood it.

Good for Hermit (an equally obtuse poster in this topic).

What's the cause of your obtuseness?

Where was I obtuse?

Q. What does not falling under a bus or off a ladder cause?

A. A redistribution of matter and radiation.

How does a static situation redistribute matter?


What do you mean "static situation"? Isn't the person not under a bus walking and breathing?

newolder wrote:
We could say falling under a bus "causes death", but not always, and if the effect is death there are lots of contributory "causes" to it in such a case, including: the proximity of the bus at that moment, the speed of the bus, the faller's position, some trip hazard, something inhibiting the faller from staying upright, etc, etc, etc. We could easily show a statistical correlation between falling under busses and dying, but then we can show that for smoking as well so busses and ladders are no use as counter examples to smoking.

Is this supposed to be a confession that you were obtuse previously? Where did I write that "falling" is a useful counterexample to "smoking"? Oh, that's right, I didn't and you are simply carrying on with obtuse posting.


Not you, Eduardo who brought up the point addressed in the post you were replying to.

eduardo wrote:
Thommo wrote:I don't think equivocating between "immediate cause" and "cause" is going to help.

Nonetheless cells with activated oncogenes and no blood supply don't cause cancer. Other conditions also must be present or absent.

That is true. It was what I was saying that there is no clear cause for cancer.
It is not simple like falling under a bus or off a ladder.


Maybe you weren't being obtuse. Maybe you just missed that.
Why do you think that?
GrahamH
 
Posts: 20385

Print view this post

Re: Correlation and causation

#187  Postby Hermit » Feb 11, 2020 7:01 pm

newolder wrote:...Hermit (an equally obtuse poster in this topic).

I strenuously object to this, newolder. I am not obtuse in this thread. Not at all! I am a genius who is misunderstood by lesser minds! Image
God is the mysterious veil under which we hide our ignorance of the cause. - Léo Errera


God created the universe
God just exists
User avatar
Hermit
THREAD STARTER
 
Posts: 3577
Age: 66
Male

Print view this post

Ads by Google


Re: Correlation and causation

#188  Postby newolder » Feb 11, 2020 7:10 pm

GrahamH wrote:...

What do you mean "static situation"? Isn't the person not under a bus walking and breathing?

Not necessarily. Walking atop a ladder? You seem to want to continue with obtuse posts. :dunno:


newolder wrote:
We could say falling under a bus "causes death", but not always, and if the effect is death there are lots of contributory "causes" to it in such a case, including: the proximity of the bus at that moment, the speed of the bus, the faller's position, some trip hazard, something inhibiting the faller from staying upright, etc, etc, etc. We could easily show a statistical correlation between falling under busses and dying, but then we can show that for smoking as well so busses and ladders are no use as counter examples to smoking.

Is this supposed to be a confession that you were obtuse previously? Where did I write that "falling" is a useful counterexample to "smoking"? Oh, that's right, I didn't and you are simply carrying on with obtuse posting.


Not you, Eduardo who brought up the point addressed in the post you were replying to.

eduardo wrote:
Thommo wrote:I don't think equivocating between "immediate cause" and "cause" is going to help.

Nonetheless cells with activated oncogenes and no blood supply don't cause cancer. Other conditions also must be present or absent.

That is true. It was what I was saying that there is no clear cause for cancer.
It is not simple like falling under a bus or off a ladder.

Yes, eduardo's "like falling under a bus or off a ladder" was providing causes (for some unspecified effect) yet you asked in return:
What's the clear cause for falling under a bus?

i.e. you were being obtuse.
I am, somehow, less interested in the weight and convolutions of Einstein’s brain than in the near certainty that people of equal talent have lived and died in cotton fields and sweatshops. - Stephen J. Gould
User avatar
newolder
 
Name: Albert Ross
Posts: 7029
Male

Country: Feudal Estate number 9
Print view this post

Re: Correlation and causation

#189  Postby GrahamH » Feb 11, 2020 7:18 pm

newolder wrote:
Yes, eduardo's "like falling under a bus or off a ladder" was providing causes (for some unspecified effect) yet you asked in return:
What's the clear cause for falling under a bus?

i.e. you were being obtuse.


Eduardo was suggesting singular cause for, we assume, death on the road, and I was highlighting that the bus is not such a singular cause. There are a multitude of causes, as with cancer (as with everything we call a cause). Compare to the preceding post referring to "activated oncogenes". That's the "bus" and "what causes the bus" relates to: "Other conditions also must be present or absent."
Why do you think that?
GrahamH
 
Posts: 20385

Print view this post

Re: Correlation and causation

#190  Postby newolder » Feb 11, 2020 7:26 pm

GrahamH wrote:
newolder wrote:
Yes, eduardo's "like falling under a bus or off a ladder" was providing causes (for some unspecified effect) yet you asked in return:
What's the clear cause for falling under a bus?

i.e. you were being obtuse.


Eduardo was suggesting singular cause for, we assume, death on the road, and I was highlighting that the bus is not such a singular cause.

That is not what you wrote.

There are a multitude of causes, as with cancer (as with everything we call a cause). Compare to the preceding post referring to "activated oncogenes". That's the "bus" and "what causes the bus" relates to: "Other conditions also must be present or absent."

You did did not write "what causes the bus" even though that would have been obtuse as well.
I am, somehow, less interested in the weight and convolutions of Einstein’s brain than in the near certainty that people of equal talent have lived and died in cotton fields and sweatshops. - Stephen J. Gould
User avatar
newolder
 
Name: Albert Ross
Posts: 7029
Male

Country: Feudal Estate number 9
Print view this post

Re: Correlation and causation

#191  Postby GrahamH » Feb 11, 2020 7:32 pm

newolder wrote:
GrahamH wrote:
newolder wrote:
Yes, eduardo's "like falling under a bus or off a ladder" was providing causes (for some unspecified effect) yet you asked in return:
What's the clear cause for falling under a bus?

i.e. you were being obtuse.


Eduardo was suggesting singular cause for, we assume, death on the road, and I was highlighting that the bus is not such a singular cause.

That is not what you wrote.

There are a multitude of causes, as with cancer (as with everything we call a cause). Compare to the preceding post referring to "activated oncogenes". That's the "bus" and "what causes the bus" relates to: "Other conditions also must be present or absent."

You did did not write "what causes the bus" even though that would have been obtuse as well.


FFS what's wrong with you?

falling under the buts<--> "activated oncogenes" :roll: Both are contributory causes. Bother are in turn effects of other causes.
Eduardo was mistaken. Why don't you address the point instead of nitpicking?
Why do you think that?
GrahamH
 
Posts: 20385

Print view this post

Re: Correlation and causation

#192  Postby newolder » Feb 11, 2020 8:53 pm

"What's the clear cause of falling under a bus?" is an obtuse request to the statement, "like falling under a bus or off a ladder." The statement is clear that there will be consequences (effects) it is not requesting knowledge of prior causes. You ask about prior causes when none are sought.
I am, somehow, less interested in the weight and convolutions of Einstein’s brain than in the near certainty that people of equal talent have lived and died in cotton fields and sweatshops. - Stephen J. Gould
User avatar
newolder
 
Name: Albert Ross
Posts: 7029
Male

Country: Feudal Estate number 9
Print view this post

Re: Correlation and causation

#193  Postby campermon » Feb 11, 2020 8:56 pm

newolder wrote:"What's the clear cause of falling under a bus?" is an obtuse request to the statement, "like falling under a bus or off a ladder." The statement is clear that there will be consequences (effects) it is not requesting knowledge of prior causes. You ask about prior causes when none are sought.


Is the cause of the cake in your avatar the fact that it is your birthday?

And is it just correlation that I'm raising my beer?

:beercheers:
Scarlett and Ironclad wrote:Campermon,...a middle aged, middle class, Guardian reading, dad of four, knackered hippy, woolly jumper wearing wino and science teacher.
User avatar
campermon
RS Donator
 
Posts: 17313
Age: 50
Male

United Kingdom (uk)
Print view this post

Re: Correlation and causation

#194  Postby newolder » Feb 11, 2020 9:20 pm

Oh feck! I hadn't realised it's still caek day. I've already had a kilo of Maltesers and there's 2 more kilos to go... I'm sure this will cause something down below soon enough.

Dig in!

Image
I am, somehow, less interested in the weight and convolutions of Einstein’s brain than in the near certainty that people of equal talent have lived and died in cotton fields and sweatshops. - Stephen J. Gould
User avatar
newolder
 
Name: Albert Ross
Posts: 7029
Male

Country: Feudal Estate number 9
Print view this post

Re: Correlation and causation

#195  Postby GrahamH » Feb 11, 2020 9:33 pm

Since its your birthday I'll just suggest that once you are done celebrating you could try explaining how falling under a bus is entirely unlike getting cancer, in terms of causes and effects, as Eduardo suggests.
Why do you think that?
GrahamH
 
Posts: 20385

Print view this post

Ads by Google


Re: Correlation and causation

#196  Postby Fallible » Feb 11, 2020 9:39 pm

Happy caek day, sir!
She battled through in every kind of tribulation,
She revelled in adventure and imagination.
She never listened to no hater, liar,
Breaking boundaries and chasing fire.
Oh, my my! Oh my, she flies!
User avatar
Fallible
RS Donator
 
Name: Alice Pooper
Posts: 50763
Age: 47
Female

Country: Engerland na na
Canada (ca)
Print view this post

Re: Correlation and causation

#197  Postby newolder » Feb 11, 2020 10:34 pm

GrahamH wrote:Since its your birthday I'll just suggest that once you are done celebrating you could try explaining how falling under a bus is entirely unlike getting cancer, in terms of causes and effects, as Eduardo suggests.

eduardo agreed that smoking causes cancer with the proviso that it doesn't always do so and then gave 2 instances where (unspecified) consequences would definitely follow from causes.

Now it's your turn... How do you reconcile your obtuse question about prior causes when these are of no relevance to the statement as presented?
I am, somehow, less interested in the weight and convolutions of Einstein’s brain than in the near certainty that people of equal talent have lived and died in cotton fields and sweatshops. - Stephen J. Gould
User avatar
newolder
 
Name: Albert Ross
Posts: 7029
Male

Country: Feudal Estate number 9
Print view this post

Re: Correlation and causation

#198  Postby newolder » Feb 11, 2020 10:35 pm

Fallible wrote:Happy caek day, sir!


:cheers:
I am, somehow, less interested in the weight and convolutions of Einstein’s brain than in the near certainty that people of equal talent have lived and died in cotton fields and sweatshops. - Stephen J. Gould
User avatar
newolder
 
Name: Albert Ross
Posts: 7029
Male

Country: Feudal Estate number 9
Print view this post

Re: Correlation and causation

#199  Postby GrahamH » Feb 12, 2020 8:36 am

newolder wrote:
GrahamH wrote:Since its your birthday I'll just suggest that once you are done celebrating you could try explaining how falling under a bus is entirely unlike getting cancer, in terms of causes and effects, as Eduardo suggests.

eduardo agreed that smoking causes cancer with the proviso that it doesn't always do so and then gave 2 instances where (unspecified) consequences would definitely follow from causes.


Eduardo did not do that, which is the point here.

Firstly, eduardo didn't even give cause and effect, but if we assume the effect is death then certainly that does not "definitely follow" from falling under a bus or falling from a ladder.

No more so than a cancerous cell results from activation of an oncogene.
The main distinguishing feature of Eduardo examples is that they are quick and visible, not that there is any more or less of a causal connection.

THommo made the point well:
eduardo wrote:
Thommo wrote:I don't think equivocating between "immediate cause" and "cause" is going to help.

Nonetheless cells with activated oncogenes and no blood supply don't cause cancer. Other conditions also must be present or absent.

That is true. It was what I was saying that there is no clear cause for cancer.
It is not simple like falling under a bus or off a ladder.



A fairer comparison might be, from general to more specific :

Smoking kills <--> traffic kills <--> Working at height is dangerous

Smoking causes cancer (etc) <--> Vehicles contribute to collisions with pedestrians (pollution etc)<--> Working at height causes high energy ground impacts
Cancer causes physical trauma <--> vehicles cause physical trauma <--> ground impact causes physical trauma

In each case some failure of essential biological processs causes death

Cancer, and other diseases caused by smoking, cause the damage on a longer timescale and are less visible, but why would that be less causal than a faster process?

It's pretty much arbitrary what you focus on and what you leave out. "falling under a bus" leaves out almost everything.
Why do you think that?
GrahamH
 
Posts: 20385

Print view this post

Re: Correlation and causation

#200  Postby eduardo » Feb 15, 2020 7:44 am

May I give apologies for not being here to answer the questions, but I can only be here occasionally. I think my point has been answered by others.
It is clear that some causes are easier to link to their effects than others as I tried to illustrate with some examples. yes to attribute a single cause to anything can be disputed.
eduardo
 
Name: Eduardo
Posts: 16

Portugal (pt)
Print view this post

PreviousNext

Return to General Science & Technology

Who is online

Users viewing this topic: No registered users and 1 guest