4 ms·

> Almost all people can follow logical sequence of arguments provided they understand the language in which they are described. No. I know people that have be

> Almost all people can follow logical sequence of arguments provided they understand the language in which they are described. No. I know people that have been explained repeatedly with absolute patience and love that correlation was not causality, with simple examples. They agree on the moment, but wait a week and they still mix it up again and again. That's one of the smallest and easiest logical concept to grasp, and they never integrate it. Practically, in day to day life, mixing correlation and causality served them very well. It's actually often true. But as soon as it's on the news or a graph on the internet, it's over. Because it's abstract. And the persons are not dumb either: they are very competent in other fields.

kamaal 3y ago
>>I know people that have been explained repeatedly with absolute patience and love that correlation was not causality, with simple examples. They agree on the moment, but wait a week and they still mix it up again and again. You just proved to them correlation doesn't imply causation in some cases, but no amount of examples will be sufficient enough to prove that is the case in all the cases. This is exactly my point. If they have seen cases where a cause was strong correlated with some data, so as far as they are concerned, at least in that case they were logically able to conclude there was some connection. To prove your point, you have to in some way prove a total disconnect between the two(correlation and causation), until then you really haven't proven anything substantial to them. Note you will need some mathematical formulation to do it(Symbol manipulation), which is basically learning a new language from grounds up. It could be impossible. Hence my point.