3 ms·
I 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 co
by jivatmanx 14y ago
I 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]