2 ms·

>> You know, you could just learn how science works. > Your condescension is hilarious. When one seen someone assume a correlation has a meaning not proven in

by lutusp 13y ago

>> You know, you could just learn how science works. > Your condescension is hilarious. When one seen someone assume a correlation has a meaning not proven in the evidence, it's not condescension, it's charity. > What you are not getting is that the correlation stands on its own. Yes, as does the causal relationship between puddles and rain in advance of an attempt to offer an explanation: puddles predict rainfall. > but it is an additional matter of interpretation to make any causal claims, or claim external or internal validity. Yes, and now that you're reduced to making my points for me, we're done.

gwern 13y ago
> Yes, as does the causal relationship between puddles and rain in advance of an attempt to offer an explanation: puddles predict rainfall. Indeed, it does. Which is why a puddle-denier is a sad sight. 'There can't be puddles because no one has offered a fully-comprehensive theory which predicts puddles and which I find acceptable! Why must people be so puddleist?' > Yes, and now that you're reduced to making my points for me, we're done. Denying your fallacious original overreadings and adopting your opponent's criticisms and claiming to have held them all along, while flattering, is still very annoying.
gwern 13y ago
> When one seen someone assume a correlation has a meaning not proven in the evidence, it's not condescension, it's charity. Where did I assume a meaning? My point was simple: you were trying to pretend the data doesn't exist by directly contradicting the very definition of what a correlation is. I am not committing myself to any further framework or theory or causal model of how the correlation comes into existence. > Yes, as does the causal relationship between puddles and rain in advance of an attempt to offer an explanation: puddles predict rainfall. Indeed, it does. Which is why a puddle-denier is a sad sight. 'There can't be puddles because no one has offered a fully-comprehensive theory which predicts puddles and which I find acceptable! Why must people be so puddleist?' > Yes, and now that you're reduced to making my points for me, we're done. Denying your fallacious original overreadings and adopting your opponent's criticisms and claiming to have held them all along, while flattering, is still very annoying.
- lutusp 13y ago
  >> When one seen someone assume a correlation has a meaning not proven in the evidence, it's not condescension, it's charity. > Where did I assume a meaning? Apart from the correlation, when you began speaking as though an I.Q. test measures intelligence. Even the current test's designer denies that. > you were trying to pretend the data doesn't exist ... Citation needed. You're using words I never used to assert a claim I never made. I never claimed that data don't exist, I made the point that without evidence for a connection, the correlation has no meaning. And I proved it with multiple examples. > Denying your fallacious original overreadings ... I see that you still need to learn the role of evidence.

by lutusp 13y ago

gwern 13y ago

> Yes, as does the causal relationship between puddles and rain in advance of an attempt to offer an explanation: puddles predict rainfall. Indeed, it does. Which is why a puddle-denier is a sad sight. 'There can't be puddles because no one has offered a fully-comprehensive theory which predicts puddles and which I find acceptable! Why must people be so puddleist?' > Yes, and now that you're reduced to making my points for me, we're done. Denying your fallacious original overreadings and adopting your opponent's criticisms and claiming to have held them all along, while flattering, is still very annoying.

gwern 13y ago

> When one seen someone assume a correlation has a meaning not proven in the evidence, it's not condescension, it's charity. Where did I assume a meaning? My point was simple: you were trying to pretend the data doesn't exist by directly contradicting the very definition of what a correlation is. I am not committing myself to any further framework or theory or causal model of how the correlation comes into existence. > Yes, as does the causal relationship between puddles and rain in advance of an attempt to offer an explanation: puddles predict rainfall. Indeed, it does. Which is why a puddle-denier is a sad sight. 'There can't be puddles because no one has offered a fully-comprehensive theory which predicts puddles and which I find acceptable! Why must people be so puddleist?' > Yes, and now that you're reduced to making my points for me, we're done. Denying your fallacious original overreadings and adopting your opponent's criticisms and claiming to have held them all along, while flattering, is still very annoying.

lutusp 13y ago
>> When one seen someone assume a correlation has a meaning not proven in the evidence, it's not condescension, it's charity. > Where did I assume a meaning? Apart from the correlation, when you began speaking as though an I.Q. test measures intelligence. Even the current test's designer denies that. > you were trying to pretend the data doesn't exist ... Citation needed. You're using words I never used to assert a claim I never made. I never claimed that data don't exist, I made the point that without evidence for a connection, the correlation has no meaning. And I proved it with multiple examples. > Denying your fallacious original overreadings ... I see that you still need to learn the role of evidence.