The Student Room Group
Uni students - Complete our survey >>
Uni students - Complete our survey >>
Uni students - Complete our survey >>

'Cleveland police shoot dead 12 year old boy ' When will it end.

Scroll to see replies

Original post by james22
Those two phrases are equivalent. It is just a change of words without changing the meaning.


I thought you did maths at Oxford? Clearly not if you think imply is the same as equal....

Any dictionary will tell you this
Original post by Schrödingers Cat
I thought you did maths at Oxford? Clearly not if you think imply is the same as equal....

Any dictionary will tell you this


Given that we know that correlation does not imply causation (this is well knows), we have "correlation does not equal causation" implies "correlation does not imply causation" vacuously. The reverse implication is obvious, and therefore they are equivalent.
Original post by james22
Given that we know that correlation does not imply causation (this is well knows), we have "correlation does not equal causation" implies "correlation does not imply causation" vacuously. The reverse implication is obvious, and therefore they are equivalent.


Here's why your wrong:

Imply is suggesting that it still might mean correlation could suggest causation. Does not equal would mean it never could or does. Saying something like does not ALWAYS equal would be acceptable though
Original post by Schrödingers Cat
Here's why your wrong:

Imply is suggesting that it still might mean correlation could suggest causation. Does not equal would mean it never could or does. Saying something like does not ALWAYS equal would be acceptable though


Which direction of implication in my argument do you have a problem with? Is it

1. "correlation does not equal causation" implies "correlation does not imply causation"

or

2. "correlation does not imply causation" implies "correlation does not equal causation"
Original post by james22
Which direction of implication in my argument do you have a problem with? Is it

1. "correlation does not equal causation" implies "correlation does not imply causation"

or

2. "correlation does not imply causation" implies "correlation does not equal causation"


Aren't they the same? :ninja:

Ignore the wording for now, what I'm saying a correlation can be a causation, but in this case it doesn't
Original post by Schrödingers Cat
Aren't they the same? :ninja:

Ignore the wording for now, what I'm saying a correlation can be a causation, but in this case it doesn't


They are not the same. A implies B is totally different to B implies A.

Correlation can be causation, but it neither implies it nor equals it.
Original post by james22

Correlation can be causation, but it neither implies it nor equals it.


Yes that's correct, I just feel saying not equal implies never can cause it

I'm not going to reply to this point anymore in case I get another warning for posting off topic things :unimpressed:
(edited 9 years ago)

Quick Reply

Related discussions

Latest

Trending

Trending

Articles for you