Dilbert with a message for theists

[Minimalist]

[Anomalocaris]

If they can read messages, they wouldn't be theists.

[Rayaan]

Correlation does not imply causation.

I knew that already.

However, I think that repeated (or many) correlations about the same thing would indicate that there is a higher probability of a causation, at least. Also, the strength of a set of correlations in determining the probability of a causation is dependent on the number of times in which there are no correlations (which occur under the same conditions).

[fr0d0]

However, I think that repeated (or many) correlations about the same thing would indicate that there is a higher probability of a causation, at least. Also, the strength of a set of correlations in determining the probability of a causation is dependent on the number of times in which there are no correlations (which occur under the same conditions).

I raise you this:

[Tiberius]

Unfortunately the guy behind Dilbert is an anti-evolutionist. He claims not to be a creationist, but apparently doesn't accept evolution either.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xmiqXClTpao

http://dilbertblog.typepad.com/the_dilbe...e_bul.html

[Minimalist]

However, I think that repeated (or many) correlations about the same thing would indicate that there is a higher probability of a causation, at least.

Hmm....so if every time you bend over to pick up a $10 bill I kick you in the nuts you think it would show that $10 bills make your nuts ache?

[Rayaan]

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.

Hmm....so if every time you bend over to pick up a $10 bill I kick you in the nuts you think it would show that $10 bills make your nuts ache?

If you kicked me in the nuts, then I would obviously know that you were doing it and not that the $10 bill was making me ache.

But, if I felt my nuts aching every single time I bend over to pick up a $10 bill, say, at least 20 times, without anyone kicking me in that spot, then I would think that it is very likely that there is indeed a causation behind the correlation even though I'm not sure what is the exact mechanism for such a thing to happen.

[Minimalist]

I'm a stealth nut kicker.

[Oldandeasilyconfused]

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?

[The_Flying_Skeptic]

The most accurate statement is probably "Correlation does not NECESSARILY imply causation."