A rant : Magic (possibly Spirituality to)

[Kai]

Seeing a correlation and calling it a correlation is one thing.

Seeing a correlation and calling it a causation is another.


Why is this so damn difficult for you people?

Seriously.

In systematics, proper method is called "seeing the pattern and inferring the process". If you're calling a pattern the process, then you have it ass backwards. The pattern is not the process should resound in your minds the same as "the map is not the territory". Same with the correlation is not the causation (which is equivalent to pattern =/= process).

[The Good Reverend Roger]

I did a dance and it rained.

Ergo, my dance caused the rain.

Or words to that effect.

[Bebek Sincap Ratatosk]

Seeing a correlation and calling it a correlation is one thing.

Seeing a correlation and calling it a causation is another.


Why is this so damn difficult for you people?

Seriously.

In systematics, proper method is called "seeing the pattern and inferring the process". If you're calling a pattern the process, then you have it ass backwards. The pattern is not the process should resound in your minds the same as "the map is not the territory". Same with the correlation is not the causation (which is equivalent to pattern =/= process).

Who are you arguing against? I don't think that the pattern = cause nor (I think) did Singer...

Imbuing patterns with 'significance' != Imbuing patterns with 'causation'

[LMNO]

WTF is 'significance'?

[The Good Reverend Roger]

WTF is 'significance'?

Another way of saying "it's more fun to call this 'significant' instead of researching the underlying causes behind a pattern."?

[The Good Reverend Roger]

"Magic" is wish fulfillment fantasy.  It is not part of physics or any other science, it is the nemesis of the proper scientific method.  It is indistinguishable from creationism or "intelligent design", on a logical level.  It is monkeys retreating to caves to beat on a hollow log in an attempt to make the complexities of the universe go away.

[Bebek Sincap Ratatosk]

"Magic" is wish fulfillment fantasy.  It is not part of physics or any other science, it is the nemesis of the proper scientific method.  It is indistinguishable from creationism or "intelligent design", on a logical level.  It is monkeys retreating to caves to beat on a hollow log in an attempt to make the complexities of the universe go away.

Just like your Mom.

[The Good Reverend Roger]

"Magic" is wish fulfillment fantasy.  It is not part of physics or any other science, it is the nemesis of the proper scientific method.  It is indistinguishable from creationism or "intelligent design", on a logical level.  It is monkeys retreating to caves to beat on a hollow log in an attempt to make the complexities of the universe go away.

Just like your Mom.

I accept your surrender.

[Kai]

Seeing a correlation and calling it a correlation is one thing.

Seeing a correlation and calling it a causation is another.


Why is this so damn difficult for you people?

Seriously.

In systematics, proper method is called "seeing the pattern and inferring the process". If you're calling a pattern the process, then you have it ass backwards. The pattern is not the process should resound in your minds the same as "the map is not the territory". Same with the correlation is not the causation (which is equivalent to pattern =/= process).

Who are you arguing against? I don't think that the pattern = cause nor (I think) did Singer...

Imbuing patterns with 'significance' != Imbuing patterns with 'causation'

Are you saying "syncronicity"?

I'm arguing against "Pffft, correlation and causation are such mutable terms." Because they aren't. Correlation = seeing a pattern, while causation = the agent/event behind the pattern. Neither of those things has anything to do with meaning.

[Bebek Sincap Ratatosk]

Seeing a correlation and calling it a correlation is one thing.

Seeing a correlation and calling it a causation is another.


Why is this so damn difficult for you people?

Seriously.

In systematics, proper method is called "seeing the pattern and inferring the process". If you're calling a pattern the process, then you have it ass backwards. The pattern is not the process should resound in your minds the same as "the map is not the territory". Same with the correlation is not the causation (which is equivalent to pattern =/= process).

Who are you arguing against? I don't think that the pattern = cause nor (I think) did Singer...

Imbuing patterns with 'significance' != Imbuing patterns with 'causation'

Are you saying "syncronicity"?

I'm arguing against "Pffft, correlation and causation are such mutable terms." Because they aren't. Correlation = seeing a pattern, while causation = the agent/event behind the pattern. Neither of those things has anything to do with meaning.

I don't disagree with your point Kai... I just don't know who argued against it...

[LMNO]

Well, if it wasn't you, why do you keep posting?

[Kai]

Seeing a correlation and calling it a correlation is one thing.

Seeing a correlation and calling it a causation is another.


Why is this so damn difficult for you people?

Seriously.

In systematics, proper method is called "seeing the pattern and inferring the process". If you're calling a pattern the process, then you have it ass backwards. The pattern is not the process should resound in your minds the same as "the map is not the territory". Same with the correlation is not the causation (which is equivalent to pattern =/= process).

Who are you arguing against? I don't think that the pattern = cause nor (I think) did Singer...

Imbuing patterns with 'significance' != Imbuing patterns with 'causation'

Are you saying "syncronicity"?

I'm arguing against "Pffft, correlation and causation are such mutable terms." Because they aren't. Correlation = seeing a pattern, while causation = the agent/event behind the pattern. Neither of those things has anything to do with meaning.

I don't disagree with your point Kai... I just don't know who argued against it...

GODDDAMN IT., FUCK! DEWAIOEWFAI;UFWEAFRWEA

SRSLY.

If you are going to say things, and then completely ignore that you just said them. YOU SAID  "Pffft, correlation and causation are such mutable terms." I SAID NO. Okay?

arg.

[Bebek Sincap Ratatosk]

Ah! I found it!

I think that I probably worded that badly.

Pffft, correlation and causation are such mutable terms. Stupid fuckers these days still think we're dealing in a universe of cause and effect, as if anything were that simple!! We live in a universe of causes and effects swapping states back and forth in a cosmic feedback loop. Pattern Recognition sometimes correctly identifies some of these causes and effects. Sometimes it doesn't (or at least not in any way we can piece together with the available data).

My point was that we humans generally say Cause = Effect.

Because I didn't stop at the red light, someone hit my car.

However, its rarely that simple.

Because I was late for work, and the sun was in my eyes, I didn't notice the light turn red.

There are usually many causes which create many effects which in turn are causes for further effects. Claiming that pattern recognition is meaningless seems to miss out on this larger picture of causes and effects.

Patterns don't always equate to cause.... but examining patterns does sometimes lead us to the causes, or at least provides us with useful data in determining a cause... even if that cause is "Because I read too much Robert Anton Wilson, I see 23's everywhere".

I am not arguing that Pattern = Cause.  I am arguing that pattern = useful (potentially).

Causation and Correlation are mutable, only in their scope.... (my point about causes rather than cause). My statement was unclear and I apologize for that!!


EDIT: And I'm still confused as to what this has to do with Magic....

[LMNO]

Hey Rat, it might be a good idea to stop commenting in this thread if you're not even sure what you're commenting on, or why...

[Kai]

And I'm saying it again, correlation and causation are NOT interchangeable. You see a pattern, you investigate that pattern fully, and when all the available evidence is gathered, you make an inference based on your evidence, which is judged in both consistency and congruence. That inference is a hypothesis, which is either falsified or corroborated by further evidence.

You do NOT start with a process (causation) and try to apply the pattern (correlation) to it. These are not mutable, or interchangable. Those who think so are muddle brained, bad scientists with bad science, and any true understanding of reality that comes out of such things is merely a fluke.