3 ms·

No, but conflating correlation for causation _is_ excess pattern recognition.

• nathias 5y ago
  not at all, pattern recognition has to do with raw data, correlation/causation about highly conceptual interpretation of the data
  • funklute 5y ago
    > pattern recognition has to do with raw data This statement makes no sense at all. Pattern recognition applies to any data. That's not even contested terminology. (besides, just redefine your processed data to be your new raw data, and you're back to square one...and in many cases it wouldn't even be clear how to precisely define unprocessed data)
    • nathias 5y ago
      Ok, what I meant to say it's a much more fundamental mechanism of cognition that has to do with processing perceptual information, while the other is a conceptual, logical mistake.
      • funklute 5y ago
        Ok. But no matter what terminology you want to use, it is still the case that there is plenty of literature that shows we are biased towards conflating correlation with causation. That is fact, not opinion. If you want to criticise the evidence in the literature, then fair enough I guess...that's beyond me to defend.