Subscription pricing
Should it be true that the assumption of "/A -> /B " in the causal relationship is A -> B
0
Should it be true that the assumption of "/A -> /B " in the causal relationship is A -> B
14 comments
Thanks Jason. I got it. I really appreciate it.
You don't want to get in the habit of using arrows to express a causal relationship. Arrows are a shorthand that express conditionality.
As for your question: if there is a purported causal relationship in which it is said that A causes B, you can strengthen this causal relationship by showing when A doesn't occur, B doesn't either. This does not prove that a causal relationship in fact exists, but it does strengthen it.
Thanks Jonathan, I see your point and it definitely makes sense. Does the fact that /A -> /B strenghthen the statement that A caused B though?
I'm just here to read the comments...
I'd love to see a citation to this statement in the LR Bible itself. This statement either proves that PowerScore's LR Bible is a piece of garbage or it illustrates a fundamental misunderstanding of the logic (or of PowerScore's explanation of the logic) on your part.
An example to illustrate the point: If I tell you that falling off my bike caused me to skin my knee, I am most certainly not assuming that falling off my bike is the only way to skin my knee. It also definitely does not imply that if I don't fall off my bike, that I won't ever skin my knee.
Lol--more a rhetorical flourish than indication of agreement ;)
You did start with "yeah" hahahha
... Did I say that?
I'll let @kennedybj959.janson35 handle this one.
I understand you do not teach Powerscore here. But, I just wanted to confirm the concept I mentioned above. Are you saying that answer to my initial question is "Yes"
Yeah we don't really "do" Powerscore around here. Are you talking about, like, showing the effect without the cause or something like that?
Thanks for your comments. I am still not clear on this. To strengthen /A -> /B, we can say A -> B. For example, according to "Logical Reasoning Bible" by claiming that A caused B, the author assumes that A is the only cause for B and thereby assume that if A does not happen, B does not happen. By using the same logic, if /A causes /B, wouldn't we also have to assume that if /A does not happen, then /B does not happen, which is "A ->B"
You're confusing conditionality with causation which is a big no go. I'd revisit lessons on both before moving forward.
"/A -> /B " in the causal relationship is A -> B
No—if you're given /A -> /B, that means you're given B -> A. And To say A -> B from B -> A would be to reverse sufficient and necessary. Big no-no.
We don't know that A causes B based merely on the fact that not doing A causes something that is not B.