You said correlation, so I can expect you to use terms properly in that context.
Oh, well there's
mutual relation of two or more things, parts, etc.:
Studies find a positive correlation between severity of illness and nutritional status of the patients.
Synonyms: similarity, correspondence, matching; parallelism, equivalence; interdependence, interrelationship, interconnection.
the act of correlating or state of being correlated.
Statistics. the degree to which two or more attributes or measurements on the same group of elements show a tendency to vary together.
Physiology. the interdependence or reciprocal relations of organs or functions.
Geology. the demonstrable equivalence, in age or lithology, of two or more stratigraphic units, as formations or members of such.http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/correlation
You assumed we should use definition 3. I was using definition 5. [/sarcasm] (more on using definitions below)
I also just asked a Logic and Philosophy professor about what you sent me.
Seems I need to address the link I sent you: I sent it solely because you were whining about "linking mechanism" not being a proper term, so I linked something that used the term "causal mechanism" instead, which is what I was talking about ("synonym" http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/synonym?s=t
). I didn't even read the rest of that link. It was purely because you were going on about terminology (more on this below).
In the case of math and science, textbooks and journals normally have a glossary. He said you can't really go with a general dictionary. If you are talking science
There's another problem. Well, actually it's two problems, and we've been over both of these multiple times before. I provide a definition for the way I'm using a term (okay, in this thread I didn't. I just used the term without defining it), and you try to force me to use a different definition. I'm talking about a topic in a completely non-mathematical manner, and you try to force it into a discussion of math. Hi, I'm having tea and crumpets over here
; why don't you come join me at my table once in a while, rather than constantly demanding that I come to your table.
Between the two of us, Steve, I am the one with credentials, so I am more of an authority than you.
I don't recognize you as being An Authority in any scientific field. That would be like a 15 year old telling a 12 year old "I'm smarter than you, so I'm right." Just because you have "more credentials" doesn't mean you're an authority.
Also, in regards to that long ago thing where you mentioned your credentials and told me to trust you because of your credentials, and I said that's a logical fallacy, and you said you laugh whenever people mention logical fallacy whenever someone mentions credentials: the Appeal to Authority is not about just mentioning the credentials; it's about using your credentials as a way of cheating, of trying to say "I don't need to provide arguments or evidence for what I'm saying, because I/this-authority says it's true". So mentioning your credentials is fine; requiring that I believe you because of
your credentials is not fine.
Also, please don't type out an obnoxious post to him. I'm referencing him; however, he is not included in the conversation nor is he on the forum, so it is kind of over the top and obnoxious to do(my math professor did not see the other obnoxious post you typed for the record).
If you bring him into the discussion by showing him the discussion and asking him about it and then using his statements as a reply, and use him as an authority figure, then he's now part of the conversation. Or at least he could be, if I wanted to speak to him. I don't think I do, though.
I am actually concerned with what is true and what is false
You mean what is "probably" true and "probably" false?
A couple more things regarding the topic at hand, because you've made references to these things previously and in the last post:
The point of view that correlation implies causation may be regarded as a theory of causality, which is somewhat inherent to the field of statistics. Within academia as a whole, the nature of causality is systematically investigated from several academic disciplines, including philosophy and physics.
So, as your professor so nicely pointed out, if you want to know which definition to use, you first check which discipline you're talking about.
(I have to use wikipedia because so few people seem to be willing to comment on even the basic nature of recognizing when you have causation from correlative data, since causation is such a huge topic still being hashed out (partially because some people are being stupid and trying to say there's no such thing as causation, or trying to raise the bar for proving causation to impossible standards). Plenty of sources want to caution to confirm whether you really have a causative effect, or whether it's only correlative, but so few want to say how to determine one from the other. More on this below)
Outside the field of philosophy, theories of causation can be identified in classical mechanics, statistical mechanics, quantum mechanics, spacetime theories, biology, social sciences, and law. To establish a correlation as causal within physics, it is normally understood that the cause and the effect must connect through a local mechanism (cf. for instance the concept of impact) or a nonlocal mechanism (cf. the concept of field), in accordance with known laws of nature.
Did you attempt to discern which definition from which discipline ActionOfAll or I were using before you jumped in and assumed mathematics/statistics? No, you assumed we would be talking about a subject from within your personally preferred field(s) despite neither of us mentioning statistics or mathematics at all. Maybe ActionOfAll was talking about it from statistics: I can't speak for him, but he never said (granted, I never said either, mostly because I attempted to subvert the entire discussion with an incredibly simplistic argument).
Secondly, the "linking mechanism" once again crops up but this time as "local mechanism" rather than "causal mechanism". Wow, so many different terms for one thing, it's almost like scientists/academics love using synonyms for no other purpose than to confound people. Assholes. ¨_¨
Back to determining one from the other: How to determine causation from correlation, because contrary to what you said before, causation actually does have the increase in relation that you mentioned earlier (unless I'm misunderstanding what you meant by increase, in which case I'd say that your version of it is specific to statistics and not necessary in the other definitions found in other disciplines)? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bradford_Hill_criteria
Determining causation from correlation. There's other things as well that you probably know off the top of your head, so I'm listing this more for anyone else than for you, but the point being that if we go from correlation to causation by testing and confirming causation, then we come right back to my statement that we can see correlation as being a subset of causation (did I get that right this time? Causation has everything that correlation has, plus the local/causal/linking mechanism. I don't even remember which site I picked up the term "linking mechanism" from).Not that my statement really mattered in the first place.
It should never have spawned a debate. Even if we wanted to get into the topic of correlation versus causation in terms of whether thoughts first crop up in the mind and then are reflected in the brain, or whether they are created in the brain first (and then it doesn't matter whether there's a mind for them to become reflected in), this could have been discussed and debated from a much better direction than "correlation is not a subset of causation" (once again, I will acknowledge that I stated it wrong in the first place, so I can see why you'd have wanted to respond to that, but that could have been dealt with so much quicker if you'd just told me I had it backwards rather than going into all that rambling you did), if you really cared. Hence why I posted the simple link about recreating thoughts directly from looking at the brain, and then asked for any evidence that thoughts might come from the mind first, or at all.
We have direct evidence of reading thoughts in the brain. What do we have regarding reading thoughts from the mind? (some theories of Psychicism, but that could just be anecdotal evidence, and it could turn out to actually be from the brain as well, through some "weird-ass applications that we haven't discovered yet" of "physics that we have discovered already". Don't know. Do care. Time and experimentation will tell better than arguing about it will)