4 ms·

> it literally pins the blame for everything bad that non-white people do on the one thing white people ... have criticized others for for two millennia While

> it literally pins the blame for everything bad that non-white people do on the one thing white people ... have criticized others for for two millennia While I don't think that polygamy is the root of all evil, it is a fact that "white people" countries don't have these bad things happening. Wouldn't it be logical to suggest that some difference in behaviour might be the reason for it?

kazagistar 9y ago
No. Correlations implying causation are not logical, and there might be numerous possible other factors causing either or both.
- swombat 9y ago
  It's not necessarily a "correlation implies causation" fallacy when there is clear and detailed reasoning of how one thing causes the other. Correlation does not prevent causation either. It's not enough to prove causation, but it's a hint that there could be something linking the two factors in some way. I find the article provides a convincing story of how one factor causes the other.
  - khrm 9y ago
    That article is factually wrong. Tunisia had outlawed polygamy and got Arab Spring. And how many suicide bombs did Iraq had before Gulf War? In Daesh countries (Iraq and Syria) polygamy wasn't that common.
  - PrimHelios 9y ago
    >It's not necessarily a "correlation implies causation" fallacy when there is clear and detailed reasoning of how one thing causes the other. If that reasoning is unproven, it's just as fallacious to assume that one thing is the result of the other. There are so many arguments that this doesn't work for that it's ridiculous. You can't just make something up and say it's the truth because it isn't illogical and you believe there's an inferred relationship between the two events.
- golergka 9y ago
  Not implying. But if you see correlation, it is logical to investigate for a possible causation.
  - perl4ever 9y ago
    The word "imply" is ambiguous. When people say "correlation doesn't imply causation" they mean that it is invalid logic to say because correlation, thus causation. But in everyday english, imply just means "to suggest", and correlation certainly does suggest causation even though that may not be the case. Correlation may equally suggest causation but in the reverse sense. Or a third cause of both things. I think you should always mentally enumerate those possibilities whenever someone is presenting a correlation.
- woodandsteel 9y ago
  You're right, correlations are absolutely useless for helping determine causation. That's why scientists never do correlational studies. It's interesting, though, that you have nothing specific to say about how one should go about determining causality.

kazagistar 9y ago

No. Correlations implying causation are not logical, and there might be numerous possible other factors causing either or both.

swombat 9y ago
It's not necessarily a "correlation implies causation" fallacy when there is clear and detailed reasoning of how one thing causes the other. Correlation does not prevent causation either. It's not enough to prove causation, but it's a hint that there could be something linking the two factors in some way. I find the article provides a convincing story of how one factor causes the other.
- khrm 9y ago
  That article is factually wrong. Tunisia had outlawed polygamy and got Arab Spring. And how many suicide bombs did Iraq had before Gulf War? In Daesh countries (Iraq and Syria) polygamy wasn't that common.
- PrimHelios 9y ago
  >It's not necessarily a "correlation implies causation" fallacy when there is clear and detailed reasoning of how one thing causes the other. If that reasoning is unproven, it's just as fallacious to assume that one thing is the result of the other. There are so many arguments that this doesn't work for that it's ridiculous. You can't just make something up and say it's the truth because it isn't illogical and you believe there's an inferred relationship between the two events.
golergka 9y ago
Not implying. But if you see correlation, it is logical to investigate for a possible causation.
- perl4ever 9y ago
  The word "imply" is ambiguous. When people say "correlation doesn't imply causation" they mean that it is invalid logic to say because correlation, thus causation. But in everyday english, imply just means "to suggest", and correlation certainly does suggest causation even though that may not be the case. Correlation may equally suggest causation but in the reverse sense. Or a third cause of both things. I think you should always mentally enumerate those possibilities whenever someone is presenting a correlation.
woodandsteel 9y ago
You're right, correlations are absolutely useless for helping determine causation. That's why scientists never do correlational studies. It's interesting, though, that you have nothing specific to say about how one should go about determining causality.