(November 29, 2011 at 2:00 am)padraic Wrote: Umm, I think correlation does in fact IMPLY (suggest) causation,but does not INFER it. (allow a conclusion/prove)

Ah shit, where's Void when I need him?

Yeah, Void is really good at explaining such logic/philosophy issues.
Here's a quote from him that I found in this post:

(March 12, 2011 at 3:55 am)theVOID Wrote: Are you fucking shitting me? Do you not understand that the strongest correlation is the most likely cause and is thus the cause that we are justified in believing to be true? C02 emissions are EASILY the strongest correlation, thus they are by far the most likely cause.

This is fucking scientific method 101...

So, strongest correlation = most likely cause = we are justified in believing it to be true. That makes sense to me.

Quote:we are justified in believing it to be true. That makes sense to me.

That is NOT what he said. We are justified in believing SOME correlations being the most likely explanation, not in believing it is necessarily true. Hence correlation certainly does imply causation,but it does NOT prove it.

(November 29, 2011 at 2:48 am)padraic Wrote: That is NOT what he said. We are justified in believing SOME correlations being the most likely explanation, not in believing it is necessarily true.

I agree, pad, and that's why I wrote "strongest correlations" in front of the equal signs which are "some" correlations, as you said.
And yes, being justified about something doesn't mean that it is necessarily true. I agree with you. So, I believe that my understanding of Void's comments is still correct.

(November 29, 2011 at 1:15 am)Rayaan Wrote:

(November 28, 2011 at 6:30 pm)fr0d0 Wrote: I raise you this:

That one looks clean and fresh.

But, still, I am quite wary that maybe you're not telling me about something that is wiggling under there. Hmm.

Do you mean this? "God will make us good because He loves us : C. S. Lewis"