3 ms·

Thanks for illustrating that you “half-understoood” the argument.

• kreeben 5y ago
  Which part _did_ I understand and what part did I not, according to you?
  • anonymouswacker 5y ago
    Sorry, I'm sometimes snarky in the mornings. Giving the OP the benefit of the doubt, I presume they meant that correlation does not always equal causation, but that there is a middle ground of the "unknown" rather than just the inverse of a logical, mathematical statement. If you see a pattern from enough correlations, then you might let go of some of your own hubris. It's not black and white, and so on.
    • kreeben 5y ago
      I'm sorry you feel I've been too binary and full of hubris. I'll take that to heart. Cheers!