(March 15, 2013 at 3:35 am)apophenia Wrote: Sure. I'd like to know how it substantiates what you said, and refutes what I said. Because it doesn't.
The first thing you said in your reply is that I was "wrong" (in saying that stronger correlations imply a greater likelihood of causation although they don't necessarily prove that with a 100% certainty). But the passages that I quoted above are supporting exactly what I said. I've also highlighted some of the words in case you didn't catch them.
I thought I wouldn't even have to point them out to you again, but apparently I had to.
(March 15, 2013 at 3:35 am)apophenia Wrote: Matter of fact, one of the articles you cited even makes the same point that I made.
Which part of the article exactly?
(March 15, 2013 at 3:35 am)apophenia Wrote: Now I'm just going to ignore you, Rayaan.

(March 15, 2013 at 3:35 am)apophenia Wrote: Like your previous articles, and John's, they seem to be generated by a google search for buzzwords followed by a healthy exercise of confirmation bias. You don't seem to understand the substance at all.
But I haven't seen you falsify any of the quotes in my articles. Instead, you're just saying "they don't refute anything I said and I'm still right" without actually showing that.
(March 15, 2013 at 3:35 am)apophenia Wrote: And I'm tired of wasting my time carefully reading articles that have zero relevance just to be absolutely sure that I haven't missed something.
I think they are relevant to what we were discussing, but surely, you don't have to read them if you think doing so is a waste of your time.