- #36
- 19,021
- 14,587
A cause. If I hit you in the jaw, your jaw will hurt. The cause would be my having hit you in the jaw.Justina said:Well than what results in causality?
A cause. If I hit you in the jaw, your jaw will hurt. The cause would be my having hit you in the jaw.Justina said:Well than what results in causality?
Is it a joke? Or you're just trying to state something similar to Newton third lawphinds said:A cause. If I hit you in the jaw, your jaw will hurt. The cause would be my having hit you in the jaw.
No I'm not a trollphinds said:No, I'm beginning to think you are a troll and I would like to hit you in the jaw. That would cause your jaw to hurt.
Maybe it would help if you tell us what the possibilities are. For what I got so far either:phinds said:My thoughts exactly. Thanks.
I agree w/ you that one should be VERY leery of making such a statement, BUT ... it's a given in the scenario I am trying to understand.
I think the discussion in this thread has confirmed my point of view that in the scenario I presented, causality is a possibility but absolutely is not guaranteed or even implied, just suggest as a possibility.
Your question is very good and not silly at all. And I think that people often make mistakes in it. There are a few ways to logically support the claim of one factor causing another.Justina said:No I'm not a troll
I'm a high school student
I just wanted to join physics forum to learn something new, and i feel u guys are so advanced in knowledge, may be that's the reason why u found me as as troll, sorry if I just inturpted you by asking silly question.
Thank you sir, that means a lot to meFactChecker said:Your question is very good and not silly at all. And I think that people often make mistakes in it. There are a few ways to logically support the claim of one factor causing another.
1) Knowledge of the subject. You may know enough about the subject to know causality without relying on statistical evidence.
2) A designed experiment. You may be able to control and manipulate one factor in a well-designed experiment and show statistically that the controlled factor causes the result in the other factor.
3) There appear to be other statistical ways to support causality that I am not familiar with. See this.
If there is enough data, this is unlikely in the long run. One important exception is when a person tries so many possible variables that one is bound to match. That is a danger when there is a lot of detailed data that is all included in a statistical regression.pines-demon said:Maybe it would help if you tell us what the possibilities are. For what I got so far either:
- Red causes Blue
- Red and Blue are unrelated, if the two match is pure chance
Maybe not as unlikely as you might assume. For instance, a lot of variables have a time trend that makes them appear related. Other trends can exist that might lead you to the wrong conclusion.pines-demon said:
- Red and Blue have a common cause (unlikely)
This is often overlooked. People often infer causality in one direction and do not rule out or account for cases of causation in the opposite direction.pines-demon said:
- With the requirement also that "Blue causes Red" is not possible.
Then I apologize.Justina said:No I'm not a troll
I'm a high school student
There is an obvious correlation between red and blue but red does not appear to lead blue. Blue definitely does not lead red.pines-demon said:Maybe it would help if you tell us what the possibilities are. For what I got so far either:
With the requirement also that "Blue causes Red" is not possible. Is there any other possibility or sub-possibilities?
- Red causes Blue
- Red and Blue are unrelated, if the two match is pure chance
- Red and Blue have a common cause (unlikely)
FactChecker said:That is a danger when there is a lot of detailed data that is all included in a statistical regression.
FactChecker said:Maybe not as unlikely as you might assume.
Just to be clear. I was trying to narrow down the assumptions of the author of the thread, not making some myself.FactChecker said:This is often overlooked.