3 ms·

That's a ridiculous conclusion to reach. If I lose weight because I start exercising and my neighbour loses weight because he started eating less, it's foolish

• ars 13y ago
  This word "because" isn't as easy to use as you think. You seem to be very sure of the exact reason why something happened. But it doesn't work that way in the real world. Virtually every country on earth had reductions in infant mortality over the years. Only one of them had a box. Clearly the main driver of the improvement is something else. So you might want to talk about the tiny differences, those things that improved one country more than another. Maybe the box? But see, you've lost all your certainty now, and you can't use the word "because", since you don't really know what improved things - after all the main improvement came from somewhere else entirely. 3rd try: Let's pick something in each country, and declare that thing the "cause" of the improvement! In Finland: A box. In Sweden? Something else. This is what you did - you have no idea what really did it, you are just picking basically random things.
  • phaemon 13y ago
    > You seem to be very sure of the exact reason why something happened. But it doesn't work that way in the real world. That's completely backwards. You made the absolute statement that "None of that did anything either". How do you know? I see you've even switched now to "Maybe the box". I wasn't picking anything at all, I just pointed out that your logic was flawed with an example, and now you're trying to argue that I'm wrong by arguing against your very own logic!
• deleted 13y ago
  [deleted]