Comment on Not the same
Zagorath@aussie.zone 5 days agoNo, it’s not. The joke is that there is a correlation, but that actually correlation doesn’t mean causation. But here we have a situation where there is neither correlation nor causation.
The problem is that the joke suggests that correlation is when A -> B (or at least it appears as such). Implication (in formal logic) is not the same as correlation.
Yup.
If the rate of dying is 100% for all humans.
Then the rate of dying for both humans who confuse correlation and causation and those who don’t is 100%. Hence there is no correlation between the confusion and dying. So no one is confusing correlation or causation, because neither are present.
credo@lemmy.world 5 days ago
Sorry to get mathematical…
P(A∣B)=P(A) iff P(B∣A)=P(B) iff P(A∩B)=P(A)P(B)
->𝐴 and 𝐵 are uncorrelated or independent.
tetris11@lemmy.ml 5 days ago
isn’t that just Bayesian apologist propaganda?
*jumps in an unlabelled Frequentist van* “Floor it!”
rustydrd@sh.itjust.works 5 days ago
Don’t even need to bring probability into this. Death is certain, and correlation requires variance.