3 ms·
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 n
by 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 agoThat 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.