/sci/ - Science & Math

>>16078655
Correlation is quantifiable. Causation is not something even in the realm of exact sciences: if you think about it, you might see that causation can't be untangled from linguistic prejudices using pure logic. Next time some pseud tells you correlation is not causation, tell him it's folly to try and prove something that can only be 'proved' beyond a shadow of doubt.

>>16078677
>Causation is not something even in the realm of exact sciences
Pearl's causal structural models, Rubin's potential outcomes. Retard.

>>16078685
Name-dropping. Pseud.

>>16078655
Given that causation is a type of (strong) correlation, yes obviously.

>>16078701
Ask your parents to slap you, and then to teach you what it means to "google," specifically the terms you have been told, retarded child.

>>16078716
not an argument

>>16078716
I'm glad I was able to force you to write complete sentences. It's not beneath you, after all.

>>16078717
>causation is not something in the exact sciences
>>gives examples of frameworks treating causation exactly
>not an argument

Yep, I think I have had enough retarded children for today.

>>16078723
Effect following cause assumes you understand the nature of time. Reasonable people smarter than you have rejected even time being real on the basis of pure mathematics and some minimal assumptions in physics.

Even if you're not one of those physicists, one event following another does not imply that the first caused the second, whatever that means. So how do we sometimes try to express implication? We say "by virtue of," which is pretty loaded language.

I say keep the vulgar little pseuds coming all night. You can go slink away like a passive-aggressive defeatist.

BTW, this >>16078719 is causation in practice.

>are there times when correlation is causation?
yeah
when the correlation results from the causation
dumbass

>>16078655
>around blacks…

>>16078655
Yes

>>16078655
Without a doubt Google malfunction. Who should I report this problem to?

>>16078655
Causation is correlation, but correlation is not causation. Does that answer your question?

>>16078677
Quantify deez nuts

I have a better argument, why don't all neo Nazis move to Vermont, Maine and new Hampshire if they're such paradises?

>>16081419
Plenty of white supremacists already live in those states and they don't like outsiders, even white outsiders.

>>16081426
so much for Maine, Vermont and new Hampshire.
If these states are so genetically superior and better than everything else, it shouldn't take more than a few years to turn them into economic powerhouses that can rival how New York City city and San Francisco used to be

>>16081431
They would need a ton of immigrants and outsiders to build a high powered industrial and tech region. It's never going to happen.

>>16081434
then why don't whites do that instead of voting for trump to piss off liberals?

>>16081439
Because they want to create a pure white utopia, they wan to vote Trump to piss off liberals.

>>16081444
They DONT want to create a pure white utopia

>>16081444
wrong, if they wanted that they'd move to Maine, Vermont and new Hampshire

>>16081419
Why don't all supposdd socialists move to Norway if its such a paradise?

>>16081431
>if you're not like NYC or SF, you're not a desirable place to live
kys

>>16078710
not really,
We all know that kinetic energy is E=1/2mv^2
now if we did an experiment where we drop increasing weights in 1kg intervalls from a fixed height and measured kinetic energy we'd get a 100% correlation with mass, in this case correlation would be causation.
But if we now marked the 1kg weight with 1 red dot, the 2kg weight with 2 red dots etc. and then repeated the exact same experiment, but measured in "number of red dots" instead of in weight in kg, we'd still get a perfect 100% correlation, but the red dots obviously don't cause the increase in kinetic energy.

>>16078655
finna bix nood all up in yo ass!
https://www.bitchute.com/video/0OkheGapNpvE/

>>16081419
>oy vay da nazis are out to get me!!!!

>>16078655
yes

This is like asking if there's times when +2 is 4. Complete nonsense.

There are times when things cause things they then correlate with. But there are also times where things don't cause things they are correlated with. And there are times when things cause things they are negatively correlated with. And there are times when things are caused by things that cause other things they are correlated with. All of which is complicated by the fact that multiple things can cause things and how effectively things can cause things can be changed by other things. Beware of geeks bearing graphs.

>There are 3 kinds of lies: lies, damned lies, and statistics.

>>16083579
Doesn't change the fact: If you want to demonstrate some kind of causation at all, you will need to find a correlation. Correlation doesn't imply causation, but causation requires correlation.

>>16083579
>Beware of geeks bearing graphs.
i'm taking that lol

>>16078655
Newton's Laws of Motion

>>16078677
>Causation is not something even in the realm of exact sciences
So what might cause you to fall to the ground if not gravity?

>>16081696
>and measured kinetic energy
How?

>>16081431
>Quantity > quality
Retard.

>>16078655
correlation is NOT causation.
you can trivially calculate correlation, you can't do that with causation (bayes is fake and gay)
Neither implies the other. You can have causation without correlation (dependence with correlation 0) and you can have correlation without causation

>>16081419
Why don't the liberals move out of the USA if they hated trump so much?

>>16083606
>Correlation doesn't imply causation, but causation requires correlation.
Insofar as if A causes B then there will be some way to measure B and A such that they are correlated with each other? Sure (I think, that might be an open philosophical question or break due to physics being weird, but I can't think of how offhand). Insofar as causation can't be shown without correlation or if there is causation then correlation will be able to be shown? Lolno.

>>16078655
there are and that picrel is one of them

>>16083631
Do you hear how circular that is? Like I said, there are some things you can't separate from linguistic prejudices. Causation is not logical implication.

In some languages, the language of causation is that the cause is for the "benefit" of the effect.

When you benefit from something, you effectively cause it. Cute, isn't it?

>>16078677
>if you think about it, you might see that causation can't be untangled from linguistic prejudices using pure logic.
why?

>>16084620
is your argument we can't figure out if something is causation? Is this what all leftoid arguments boil down to?

>>16083579
This picture is retarded.
Literally anyone with a brain knows that protecting the engines and pilot are important to survival of an aircraft.
It’s not that Ábrahám Wald was intelligent, it’s that the military was filled with retards.

>>16084752
>Does operational research on airplanes
>Doesn't do research on his own flights with Pajeet Air and their terrible maintenance protocols.
>Dies in plane crash
Retard confirmed

>>16081431
>how New York City city and San Francisco used to be
How come they used to be good, but no longer are?

>>16084685
>why?
See >>16084632

>Is it what all leftoid arguments boil down to?
It's my answer to leftoid arguments. There are always denialists that claim confounding factors.

>>16078655
Since when?

Also f yeah I knew it was just a matter to get every nazi scientist on the case

>>16078701
>he hasn't read pearl
lol
lmao

>>16078655
White people are less adaptive and can only live in peaceful states.

Barkon Approved Thread.

>>16078685
>potential outcomes
Doesn’t sound rigorous, famiglia

>>16084752
True and real.
>>16078786
/thread

>>16084754
LMAO, it was a jew, all their achievements are fake AF.

>>16086521
That's just because the Chinese are stupid.
Or whatever barcode language that is
>>16083631
He's trying to say that there is no because. The apple falls because of gravity is how we say it, but you could equally just say that the falling is a part of gravity. Or even its definition. Without the falling there'd be no gravity.
Put differently, gravity and the falling are they same. There is no cause because you create a logic where there is none. There is no "there is gravity ergo the apple falls". The apple falls. The apple is under this influence of gravity. They're synonyms if you look at 'causality' from a stricter point of view.

In the end it's correct in that regard. But causality still exists. Plants grow because of the sun. The sun could shine but plants might not grow. But necessarily for plants (in general) to grow, there first must be sun which creates the intial conditions that cause the opportunity for plants to grow.
The sun is a cause of plants growing.
But in the case of falling apples and gravity. The cause and the effect are inherently tied.

It's like saying it's sunny because the sun shines. The logic you've imposed does not make sense because they're synonymous, instead of under a cause effect relationship.

Still though the barcode Asians are stupid for conflating 'to the benefit of' with causality. What would you expect from a society whose main influence was Confucius who basically told them to blindly obey the state lol.

>>16086536
Don't have to. The nature of causation is that it is reciprocal. The chicken and the egg are as old as time immemorial. What does Pearl say?

>>16086666
Confucius taught filiality so that parents and children could benefit each other. Blindly obeying the state is more your thing.

>gravity and the falling are they same
I more or less agree with that.

>>16078655

>>16078655
It can indicate causation but
>the direction(s) of causal influence are not clear
>outcomes are at least polynomial with multiple terms

I do like the IQ regression to safety relationship. The only real counterexamples to it are China, the Soviet states, and a few early 20th century states where supposedly high-IQ nations genocided their own demographic, throwing off the safety measurements drastically.

>>16086666 (checked)
This position on causality is almost indefensible because it entails very exotic beliefs on time (specifically a backwards view of spacetime) and logical or set formation.

The entire view is also completely ad hoc, and you don't see it appearing until people started arguing metaphysics from causality to "prove" we're in a simulation or that god exists or other uncomfortable premises involving sufficient reason axioms. It's not even the best cope for this type of argument either, just the most 'enlightened redditor' bugman style available.

>>16086666
I feel like I lost IQ points parsing this. Your post is the perfect example of a low IQ pseud trying to appear smart.

Correllation is causation whenever you do it, anon

>>16086706
Nu-physicists have rejected time being "real", but they're not wrong. Causation is not a notion for exact sciences because it assumes any notion of time. It's dangerous folly to assume causation is something purely logical and morally disinterested for reasons I mentioned.

>>16086706
Mine?
I was only explaining what the other anon meant. Although I guess if you were autistic about the definition of causality then he does make a point.
>The apple falls because of gravity
Is gravity the cause here?
Like I would say it is. But you could make the argument that the falling is synonymous with gravity in the sense that they're both describing the same process.
>>16086743
Sure. Explain where I'm wrong and I'll learn from you. I don't think that's what a low IQ pseud would do.
Also if I'm a low IQ pseud then you should easily be able to tell me where I'm wrong, since it's so low IQ and all.

>>16083631
You gravitate towards the ground. The verb of falling is an unnecessary extra step. The effect of gravity is gravity.

>>16081431
imagine considering GDP to be the most important measurement of a society.

>>16086875
Thats how jews measure the goyims

>>16081419
>>16081431
Reminder before the Great Migration US cities used to have low crime rates. The blacks brought the violence with them.

>>16086749
>Mine?
The position you criticize (total elimination of causality as semantically meaningful) is certainly indefensible. I don't know what your particular position is, but it is hard for any position to be weaker than that.

>>16081431
>how New York City city and San Francisco used to be
what happened?

>>16078655
In that example, the correlation is caucasians.

>>16087030

>>16087030
diversity

>>16078655
yes

>>16084620
>Causation is not logical implication.
Causation causes logical implication.
I vaguely recall David Lewis on causation. We all know causation but his account could have been easier.

>>16090527
Everyone knows many wrong and incoherent things.

>>16078655

>>16078655
only when the correlation is 1. any less and it's wrong to assume causation. even when it's 1, we still cannot prove causation, but may reasonably assume it.

>>16078719
NTA, but would you do us all a favor and drink poison?

>>16078655
>are there times when correlation is causation?

Yes, but it's also important to notate all attributes involved in the analysis of a given subject. For instance the "safest" US states highlighted in op are also among the coldest and snowiest in the country. Which in turn causes them to have much lower populations than their peer states due to only a select amount of people are interested in living there as pic related shows.

https://worldpopulationreview.com/state-rankings/coldest-states

https://worldpopulationreview.com/state-rankings/snowiest-states

So instead of demographics correlating to safety it's possible that temperature, weather and low population correlates to the level of safety a state yields instead. Maybe the difficulty or success rate of most crimes is negatively affected by winter based environments. Also a smaller population increases the likelihood of more people knowing who you or your family are which would make it harder to get away with a crime longer.

>>16092196
they have less crime because they have less negroes

>>16078655
All causation is correlation

>>16078655
Physical attractive and corporal posture.
Bad posture = ugly
Beautiful = Good posture

>>16093281
Then what's the explanation for Montana, North Dakota and South Dakota all having higher crime rates compared to Maine, New Hampshire and Vermont?

>>16093724
They have natives in there, especially South Dakota. Also less whites in general

>>16081431
We don't want industry. It's nice here, stay away.

>correlation is causation
When White people do something.
>correlation is causation
>When black people do something.

>>16093731
don't worry, nobody will probably ever move there unless something changes. I certainly will never move there.

>>16081613
because they're not socialists

>>16083659
because he'll die eventually

>>16093726
this, indians are just like negroes, they're all drug addicts and violent criminals

>>16093756
don't speak like that about Hindus you bastard. Indians are model minorities

>>16093745
So they will remain safe with high socio-economic metrics, until something changes and they won't be anymore

>>16078655
Yes. Correlation is the edge (or a series of edges) in a probabilistic graph, causation is simply direction of those edges

>>16081696
So? Causation is still a strong form of correlation. Not in terms of a number but in terms of a direction in a graph.

>>16083652
That's incorrect. Correlation as a linear relationship you can have 0 of, but the wider definition of correlation is just connection of events in a probabilistic graph, implying that there is some kind of transformation that does show correlation.

>>16093838
ok, a causal relation between two random variables doesn't imply non-zero covariance.
happy now?

>>16078655
Here you go bud

>>16078655
Is this some kind of pseudo science the elites teach the kids to ruin science?

>>16093780
pajeets are human trash

>>16078655
yes, almost always
>oy vey it was just a coincidence
is always a lie

>>16078655
correlation IS causation. this statement is believed at birth by all humans, meaning it's a universal innate belief. Therefore it's true.

>>16078655
correlation is definitely causation when it comes to negroes and crime

>>16078655
No you fucking mongrel retard

>>16083631
Magnets

>>16084754

>>16085616
diversity turned those formerly civilized cities into urban jungles

>all blue states
really makes you think

>>16100489
They are also very pro-gun. Also it's an outdated pic, red state Iowa is now safer than all 3.

>>16100489
>>>/pol/

>>16100504
>Iowa is now safer than all 3.
not for long, a lot of chicago groids are being relocated to iowa to take care of the excessive whiteness problem

>>16099953
The surrounding regions would actually be a lot better off if all roads, bridges, railways and other transportation connections to Baltimore were cut off from the rest of the world. Baltimore is violent drug addicted negroes and not much more.

>>16078655
Yes.
Gambling. Insurance. Money Laundering. Choosing diversified stocks as a hedge against stupidity.

In brief: decision making is largely stochastic.

>>16078655
empirically, its the same thing, except causation has a direction. the threshold of causation is not quantifiable.

>>16105002
deboonked
https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/mad-cow-versus-brexit/
>However, the real reason that these two maps look so similar is that they are actually the same map, with one in color and one in grayscale. The creator of this image took a real map showing Brexit results, then altered the map's key, date, and color before sharing it on social media to satirize the results of the referendum.

>>16083631
>Gravity causes you to fall to the ground
I happen to be sitting comfy in a chair, im not falling anywhere, yet gravity acts on me. Curious

>>16105066
Just goes to show what liars the pro-EU crowd is and that they have no legitimate arguments that they can make for their cause

>>16105345
it is known

>>16105066
Is this "debunk" supposed to be some kind of joke? Literally all it takes is one google search to confirm it.

>>16105345
a british couple were escorted out of an airport because their funny 10+ year passports aren't accepted in the EU anymore so they can't go to spain

>>16105896
damn that does it then, cancel brexit

>>16100063
>diversity
and who was it that insisted on that diversity?

>>16106779
>and who was it that insisted on that diversity?
Your average voter, officially. Isn't democracy wonderful?

>>16106901
nobody ever voted for diversity