post hoc ergo propter hoc
Lets talk critical thinking.
Assuming that correlation implies causation is a very prevalent error in thinking. The fallacy, in common use, is the assumption that a correlation (relationship) between two variables means that one caused the other.
I ate a sandwich which was made with 2 week old chicken salad and now I have a stomach ache.
:.Therefore 2 week old chicken salad causes stomachaches.
Wrong. Logically speaking that is. While the chicken salad might have caused the stomach ache, the pattern of thinking is not sound; the correlation does not 'prove' the causation, it merely implies or suggests it. The correlation in the example could be completely irrelevant. Maybe my stomach ache was simply transient, or caused by something else. Maybe it wasn't even a stomach ache at all, but a sign I had to take a dump. Maybe the old chicken salad soothed a stomach ache that was just flaring up! All we know is that this way of thinking brings us no closer to the actual truth of the matter.
The problem of this fallacy is further complicated when you realize there may even be errors in the correlated variables:
The rise in autism rates is due to the chemicals contained in vaccines.
:. Infant vaccinations are the cause of rising autism rates.
Not only is this popular argument a logical fallacy, but it contains factual errors in both premises:
"The rise in autism rates..." New data produced by the CDC has stated the autism prevalence rate at approx. 100 in 100,000 people or 1%. This is apparently higher than past studies which has led to the anti-vax crowd clamoring for an explanation. However, there are explanations for this apparent rise in rates. Our methods of detecting autism, not to mention a much higher awareness of the condition are most likely to blame. Scientific studies, not just phone interviews to not bear out a high statistical occurrence of the disease.
"Chemicals in vaccines cause autism" This claim has been thoroughly and categorically debunked by strict examinations by every reputable scientific agency. Despite the claims of mothers who 'know whats best for my baby!', there is no evidence to connect vaccine ingredients to autism rates.
There is currently no specific predictor of autism known at this time, a fact that does not sit well with some people, however this is the nature of medical science; all the answers are not yet known in a categorical sense. Hunting for correlations and then assuming causation is not a good way to understand reality, its a terrible way. Yet this is what we contend with in our society and thus it makes sense to point out when and where these people are wrong.
Assuming that correlation implies causation is a very prevalent error in thinking. The fallacy, in common use, is the assumption that a correlation (relationship) between two variables means that one caused the other.
I ate a sandwich which was made with 2 week old chicken salad and now I have a stomach ache.
:.Therefore 2 week old chicken salad causes stomachaches.
Wrong. Logically speaking that is. While the chicken salad might have caused the stomach ache, the pattern of thinking is not sound; the correlation does not 'prove' the causation, it merely implies or suggests it. The correlation in the example could be completely irrelevant. Maybe my stomach ache was simply transient, or caused by something else. Maybe it wasn't even a stomach ache at all, but a sign I had to take a dump. Maybe the old chicken salad soothed a stomach ache that was just flaring up! All we know is that this way of thinking brings us no closer to the actual truth of the matter.
The problem of this fallacy is further complicated when you realize there may even be errors in the correlated variables:
The rise in autism rates is due to the chemicals contained in vaccines.
:. Infant vaccinations are the cause of rising autism rates.
Not only is this popular argument a logical fallacy, but it contains factual errors in both premises:
"The rise in autism rates..." New data produced by the CDC has stated the autism prevalence rate at approx. 100 in 100,000 people or 1%. This is apparently higher than past studies which has led to the anti-vax crowd clamoring for an explanation. However, there are explanations for this apparent rise in rates. Our methods of detecting autism, not to mention a much higher awareness of the condition are most likely to blame. Scientific studies, not just phone interviews to not bear out a high statistical occurrence of the disease.
"Chemicals in vaccines cause autism" This claim has been thoroughly and categorically debunked by strict examinations by every reputable scientific agency. Despite the claims of mothers who 'know whats best for my baby!', there is no evidence to connect vaccine ingredients to autism rates.
There is currently no specific predictor of autism known at this time, a fact that does not sit well with some people, however this is the nature of medical science; all the answers are not yet known in a categorical sense. Hunting for correlations and then assuming causation is not a good way to understand reality, its a terrible way. Yet this is what we contend with in our society and thus it makes sense to point out when and where these people are wrong.
Labels: correlation causation
posted by doeman at
1:17 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home