5 ms·
She's actually saying that A<-C AND B<-C implying that B wasn't necessary for A as long as C.
by kami8845 14y ago
She's actually saying that
A<-C AND B<-C
implying that B wasn't necessary for A as long as C.
- DigitalJack 14y agoEven so, still not a mix up of cause and effect. Wrong cause in this case.
- deleted 14y ago[deleted]
- deleted 14y ago[deleted]
- jivatmanx 14y agoI agree. Also, I'll address the accusation that Nate is confusing cause and effect. Nate's assertion is A<-B If he had confused cause and effect than that corrected form would be B<-A, or, that the financial crisis caused bad models. So the Author's mistake is that (A<-C AND B<-C) != (B<-A), or, that her attack on Nate is inconsistent with what she believes is the correct logic.
- pdonis 14y agoThe author isn't saying that A<-B is a confusion of cause and effect. She is saying that B is itself an effect of C, not a cause. (A better way to say it would be "B is not a root cause".)
- deleted 14y ago[deleted]