Correlation & Causation in Politics

[Wake]

I've been wary of posting sources because most of them are deemed to have CC problems. The qustion is, what are some sources for any certain political issue that has no such CvC problems? Where does one find such legit sources? I have this link from Wikipedia about correlation and causation:

Correlation does not imply causation - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I'm wanting to improve my debate skills and, if there was a place to find sources without CvC problems that would help greatly. Any such sources for the major political issues would be great. You know, an interesting thought crossed my mind. What if someone gathered a list of legit sources that didn't have CvC problems, and then organize them according to political issue? If such a list were made, it'd be a great addition to this forum. A tool where one can pick out great sources for any side of any issue.

With your help, I feel we'd be improving the quality of debate here.

 

[StillBallin75]

I've been wary of posting sources because most of them are deemed to have CC problems. The qustion is, what are some sources for any certain political issue that has no such CvC problems? Where does one find such legit sources? I have this link from Wikipedia about correlation and causation:

Correlation does not imply causation - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I'm wanting to improve my debate skills and, if there was a place to find sources without CvC problems that would help greatly. Any such sources for the major political issues would be great. You know, an interesting thought crossed my mind. What if someone gathered a list of legit sources that didn't have CvC problems, and then organize them according to political issue? If such a list were made, it'd be a great addition to this forum. A tool where one can pick out great sources for any side of any issue.

With your help, I feel we'd be improving the quality of debate here.

The CvC problem usually isn't with the source, it's with the poster's argument.

 

[spud_meister]

Find a source that includes the causation and correlation. I could say that the lack of pirates causes global warming, there is a correlation in that global temperatures have increased as the number of pirates has decreased, but unless the source also points out the increase in global temperatures is due to the increase in ship burning fuel because there's less pirates to prey upon them, it's not a feasible argument.

 

[Geo Patric]

Find a source that includes the causation and correlation.

and do not step into the crevice while avoiding the crack.

correlation does not 'automatically' imply causation... it does not INDICATE causation but to ignore correlations in investigation causation is likely to result i even greater error. from the wiki:

"correlation is necessary for linear causation . . .correlation can be a hint"

not only CAN but usually IS. no cop is going to ignore the fact at you were in the room when the guy was shot.

the aphorism is important to remind us to not ASSUME causation automatically, but it is not intended to suggest that we ignore correlation as a possible and even probable case.

geo.

 

[Djoop]

We are pattern seeking mammals, it's what we do.

 

[NoC_T]

It's not that correlation implies causation per se, but that given statistical frequency, the odds of there being no causation decline proportionately with repetition.

For the purposes of political debate, we can assume that common sense (as arbitrary a quality as it is) will suffice where a doubt remains. If it walks, talks and acts like a duck, chances are it's a duck. It may be a stegosaurus, but we know differently.

 

[Geo Patric]

It may be a stegosaurus, but we know differently.

damn.... and you were doing so well!

we cannot know that it is NOT Stegosaurus if it is possible that it IS a stegosaurus.

geo.

 

[NoC_T]

damn.... and you were doing so well!

we cannot know that it is NOT Stegosaurus if it is possible that it IS a stegosaurus.

geo.

Damn...you missed the point.

And then made it for me. Kudos. lol

Noc_T

 

[Geo Patric]

Damn...you missed the point.

well... i did not miss anything tat was actually there. perhaps you wold care to show otherwise?

geo.

 

[Deuce]

and do not step into the crevice while avoiding the crack.

correlation does not 'automatically' imply causation... it does not INDICATE causation but to ignore correlations in investigation causation is likely to result i even greater error. from the wiki:

"correlation is necessary for linear causation . . .correlation can be a hint"

not only CAN but usually IS. no cop is going to ignore the fact at you were in the room when the guy was shot.

the aphorism is important to remind us to not ASSUME causation automatically, but it is not intended to suggest that we ignore correlation as a possible and even probable case.

geo.

I would also point out that even a lack of correlation may not be proof of lack of causation! This all only works if you only have two variables. Thing is, basically nothing, ever, anywhere, has only two variables to deal with. A common climate "skeptic" argument is to point out that over the last 500 million years or so carbon dioxide and temperature have very little correlation. This is true. However, would would find exactly the same problem if you compared solar activity to temperature over the last 500 million years - terrible correlation. Wait, solar activity has a poor correlation to temperature? That's nonsense!

Put the two variables together and now you have a good correlation to temperature!

We see this with deficits/taxes/revenue too. People try to point at simple comparisons of tax rates to revenues, unemployment, deficits, whatever, but it's pretty useless to look at only one thing when trying to assess impact on a massive economy like the United States. There are so many variables involved that you just can't feasibly draw a conclusion on such a small comparison.

It's not that correlation implies causation per se, but that given statistical frequency, the odds of there being no causation decline proportionately with repetition.

For the purposes of political debate, we can assume that common sense (as arbitrary a quality as it is) will suffice where a doubt remains. If it walks, talks and acts like a duck, chances are it's a duck. It may be a stegosaurus, but we know differently.

Common sense is one of the worst ways to assess anything.

 

[obvious Child]

I've been wary of posting sources because most of them are deemed to have CC problems. The question is, what are some sources for any certain political issue that has no such CvC problems? Where does one find such legit sources? I have this link from Wikipedia about correlation and causation:

I agree with the other posters, it's really not the source per se but how the user posts them.

Let's do a common example.

A number of people here have argued that tax cuts automatically increase tax revenue. They cite general increases in tax revenue following a tax cut. This is not automatically correlation equating to causation. It's their argument's total failure to isolate the impact of tax cuts upon tax revenues. By failing to address other potential causes, such as increased trade, new industries, expansions in industries, increased demand, etc they basically assume that X caused Y. Could they be right that tax cuts increase revenue? Sure. But until they isolate the strength of tax cuts upon tax revenue there's really nothing they're arguing except C=C.

It's not primarily your source, it's how you use it and what else you do in your argument.

 

[NoC_T]

well...

Needless. It's all there, whether your ego will permit you to admit it or not. :mrgreen:

 

[NoC_T]

Common sense is one of the worst ways to assess anything.

I agree. Yet unfortunately, it's often about all we have as a position from which to make judgements.

 

[Redress]

I've been wary of posting sources because most of them are deemed to have CC problems. The qustion is, what are some sources for any certain political issue that has no such CvC problems? Where does one find such legit sources? I have this link from Wikipedia about correlation and causation:

Correlation does not imply causation - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I'm wanting to improve my debate skills and, if there was a place to find sources without CvC problems that would help greatly. Any such sources for the major political issues would be great. You know, an interesting thought crossed my mind. What if someone gathered a list of legit sources that didn't have CvC problems, and then organize them according to political issue? If such a list were made, it'd be a great addition to this forum. A tool where one can pick out great sources for any side of any issue.

With your help, I feel we'd be improving the quality of debate here.

As has been addressed, the problem is not with sources. If you don't source your argument when called to, your argument is an automatic fail. The problem is with what sources and how you use them. So when you used a WND article for a source, the problem was not that you sourced, the problem was what the source was. When you fail to source, especially when you do it claiming "people say this", people are going to call you on it, and correctly.

 

[Geo Patric]

Needless. It's all there, whether your ego will permit you to admit it or not. :mrgreen:

ok. what "it" is .... well, whatever it is, is all there.

geo.

 

[Just1Voice]

CvC is tricky to say the least. There are a number of folks from different fields (Philosophy, Psychology, Religious studies, and such) who believe that our human "single point of perceptions" has caused us to relate natural occurrences that coincide with our own actions and then to build that correlation into a belief in magic and gods.

It's not that correlation implies causation per se, but that given statistical frequency, the odds of there being no causation decline proportionately with repetition.

For the purposes of political debate, we can assume that common sense (as arbitrary a quality as it is) will suffice where a doubt remains. If it walks, talks and acts like a duck, chances are it's a duck. It may be a stegosaurus, but we know differently.

This example, for instance, in which three behavioral properties are assumed to correlate to a statistical probability, but are in truth irrelevant. The "it" referred to could be any number of things which we, in our flawed perceptions have recognized similarities to a duck (including an animation, or a person imitating a duck). Moreover, the fact that actual ducks exist which do not meet these criteria (due to injury, for example) only further shows the criteria listed to be useless for determining what "it" is.

However, what is most unclear to me at this point is what the OP intends to do with this particular gem, since it can be applied to any number of observations, including our process of scientific inquiry. The difference between correlation and causation is the difference between scientific law and scientific theory, respectively. which is why so many of our most relied upon theories are still only called "theories" (a scientific law shows 100% correlation between events under perfectly controlled conditions, but cannot "prove" causation, which is the "why" that scientific theory concerns itself with).

In other words, "Correlation does not imply causation" might be used to counter any argument in which causation is used. This is largely because we are human, and any inference is fallible. You can't "prove" anything.

Any person wishing to be stubborn can refuse to change their thinking based on this. If consensus is ever to be reached regarding a "causation" argument, someone has to be willing to give a little ground in the realm of statistical inference.

 

[NoC_T]

This example, for instance, in which three behavioral properties are assumed to correlate to a statistical probability, but are in truth irrelevant. The "it" referred to could be any number of things which we, in our flawed perceptions have recognized similarities to a duck (including an animation, or a person imitating a duck). Moreover, the fact that actual ducks exist which do not meet these criteria (due to injury, for example) only further shows the criteria listed to be useless for determining what "it" is.

However, what is most unclear to me at this point is what the OP intends to do with this particular gem, since it can be applied to any number of observations, including our process of scientific inquiry. The difference between correlation and causation is the difference between scientific law and scientific theory, respectively. which is why so many of our most relied upon theories are still only called "theories" (a scientific law shows 100% correlation between events under perfectly controlled conditions, but cannot "prove" causation, which is the "why" that scientific theory concerns itself with).

In other words, "Correlation does not imply causation" might be used to counter any argument in which causation is used. This is largely because we are human, and any inference is fallible. You can't "prove" anything.

Any person wishing to be stubborn can refuse to change their thinking based on this. If consensus is ever to be reached regarding a "causation" argument, someone has to be willing to give a little ground in the realm of statistical inference.

For myself, your final paragraph pretty much delineates the entire debate. Since we agree that literal proof is an impossibility, we arrive most closely at something approximating it with universality, which underpins both the essential prerequisite and the essential flaw in all empiricism. I would, however, make the concession that universality will suffice. Even purest mathematics operates only with the given that premises are accepted as being constant (in themselves, a product of the consensus you mention).

That said, absolute proof stands as something far less than necessary for the purposes of practicality. We needn't flog ourselves to death for want of any reference point that stands as inviolable. As much is the province of theology regardless (notwithstanding any parallels of course).

 

[NoC_T]

ok. what "it" is .... well, whatever it is, is all there.

geo.

Well, alrighty then.

Come on. First round's on me.

 

[Just1Voice]

For myself, your final paragraph pretty much delineates the entire debate. Since we agree that literal proof is an impossibility, we arrive most closely at something approximating it with universality, which underpins both the essential prerequisite and the essential flaw in all empiricism. I would, however, make the concession that universality will suffice. Even purest mathematics operates only with the given that premises are accepted as being constant (in themselves, a product of the consensus you mention).

That said, absolute proof stands as something far less than necessary for the purposes of practicality. We needn't flog ourselves to death for want of any reference point that stands as inviolable. As much is the province of theology regardless (notwithstanding any parallels of course).

I have never been comfortable with the concept of "inviolable" reference points. The elders in my family once tried to make a rule preventing the discussion of politics and/or religion at family gatherings. I understand why they did this, but unfortuantely none of us turned out to be very good at keeping our opinions to ourselves. I can no longer attend most family functions as a result. My training as a debater has led me to push several members of my family into a rage, and if they cannot stop expressing their viewpoints, I am certainly not going to stop expressing mine.

 

[NoC_T]

I have never been comfortable with the concept of "inviolable" reference points. The elders in my family once tried to make a rule preventing the discussion of politics and/or religion at family gatherings. I understand why they did this, but unfortuantely none of us turned out to be very good at keeping our opinions to ourselves. I can no longer attend most family functions as a result. My training as a debater has led me to push several members of my family into a rage, and if they cannot stop expressing their viewpoints, I am certainly not going to stop expressing mine.

Nor should you. Who could say otherwise, but those who hold an opinion for either it's own sake, or as some crutch, in defence of insecurity?

 

[Just1Voice]

Nor should you. Who could say otherwise, but those who hold an opinion for either it's own sake, or as some crutch, in defence of insecurity?

Insecurity, of course. It's very unsettling to be forced to see that your entire worldview is built on an assumption that has a 50/50 chance at being completely faulty. People don't like it. And woe be unto you should you actually crumble the foundation of another persons worldview entirely under logical argument. They will never forgive you for that.

 

[NoC_T]

Insecurity, of course. It's very unsettling to be forced to see that your entire worldview is built on an assumption that has a 50/50 chance at being completely faulty. People don't like it. And woe be unto you should you actually crumble the foundation of another persons worldview entirely under logical argument. They will never forgive you for that.

You hold no obligation to diminish yourself for the weakness of another. Nor to take personal responsibility for their mindset.

Given your insight, I'd have to venture that you are somewhat of a more pleasant disposition than myself, inasmuch I derive pleasure from doing just that. Call it a flaw. It is what it is, yo.

 

[What if...?]

I have never been comfortable with the concept of "inviolable" reference points. The elders in my family once tried to make a rule preventing the discussion of politics and/or religion at family gatherings. I understand why they did this, but unfortuantely none of us turned out to be very good at keeping our opinions to ourselves. I can no longer attend most family functions as a result. My training as a debater has led me to push several members of my family into a rage, and if they cannot stop expressing their viewpoints, I am certainly not going to stop expressing mine.

Are you saying you've noted an inability to back down, to concede, a willingness to run to a jerking stop at the end of the chain over and over, in some conservatives? Especially ones with heavy conservative media exposure? Something other than "messaging" repetition routines?

 

[What if...?]

Insecurity, of course. It's very unsettling to be forced to see that your entire worldview is built on an assumption that has a 50/50 chance at being completely faulty. People don't like it. And woe be unto you should you actually crumble the foundation of another persons worldview entirely under logical argument. They will never forgive you for that.

Try suggesting that the assumption you mentioned is a "manufactured" thing. That wool has been pulled over eyes. Crickets or rage.

 

[Just1Voice]

Are you saying you've noted an inability to back down, to concede, a willingness to run to a jerking stop at the end of the chain over and over, in some conservatives? Especially ones with heavy conservative media exposure? Something other than "messaging" repetition routines?

I have noted a mass reliance on talking heads to back up points. It's as if they believe that if they all call such-and-so person an "authority," that makes it so. I can't tell you how many times during GWs time in office I heard people defend voting for him because "he has good people working for him" when in fact they had no reason to believe that, aside from that is what they had heard on FOX, but it was a lot.