Not
necessarily, but it certainly implies it.
(dchurch bah, Thu 22 Sep 2011, 19:48, 1 reply)

No it doesn't
That's his point - just because the two events happened at the same time, it doesn't mean (or 'imply') that they were in any way related

For reference; en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Correlation_does_not_imply_causation
(Godwin's Lawyer is more evil than Hitler, Thu 22 Sep 2011, 23:08, closed)

I'm not buying that
By the same token, because some people that smoke get lung cancer, smoking causes lung cancer. There's no research to back this up that I can find. It's merely correlation between the two happenings that have lead people to the conclusion that one must be the causality of the other.
The same with drinking, and speeding.
Someone gets hit by a driver going faster than a limit on speed that someone in a suit somewhere has decided is fast enough for a road he's probably never seen but applied the same blanket rules to, and therefore 'Speed Kills'. Yet, I've seen plenty of F1 drivers driving far faster, yet miraculously they survive.

By definition, an implication is something that is an indirect indication, it's not the same as saying "a means b" - such as, smoking no longer being allowed in pubs being an indirect cause of less people frequenting them, implying that the ban is the cause of the demise of pubs.
(dchurch bah, Fri 23 Sep 2011, 13:27, closed)

It's a statistical analysis thing
It's not really up for debate.
( MatJ LOOK, Fri 23 Sep 2011, 16:58, closed)

Tell
Karl Popper that.

Statistics, and/or tools of statistical analysis should not be questioned or debated.
(dchurch bah, Fri 23 Sep 2011, 19:21, closed)

Ok, I've looked up his views.
And I've tried to write something sensible, but that's not easy when you're pissed. Suffice for now to say that I see where he's coming from but don't agree with his basic position. I'll try to add more tomorrow when I'm sober.


Edit:

It depends on how you view natural laws. I would say that the correct way is that all laws of nature are derived entirely by observation, and that anything that appears to break the laws of nature as we understand them in fact does not - it merely provides a situation in which we must modify our definition of the laws.

Popper claims that a single counterexample is sufficient to prove a law false, but by the definition above that just doesn't make sense; rather it will modify a law that cannot, under any circumstances, be said to be false. As a proponent of the falsification principle, Popper would probably then argue that if a law cannot be proven to be false it has no meaning, but would fall into the trap that the falsification priciple itself is not falsifiable. Traditionally philosophers have got around this problem by claiming that the principle itself is the only exception to which I say: Bullshit.
( MatJ LOOK, Sat 24 Sep 2011, 0:13, closed)

As a more coherent and less philosophical argument:
Not all disagreements are created equal. Someone who admits having failed a maths GCSE (which when I did it did not contain ANY statistics - it may have done before 2005) questioning an absolutely fundamental principle of modern science is not quite the same as a nobel laureate questioning the priciples of homeopathy, for example.
( MatJ LOOK, Mon 26 Sep 2011, 1:34, closed)

Technically
and 'E' is a pass mark. Your post sounds somewhat like an ad hominem attack, if I may say so, which weakens any argument you may put forward.
(dchurch bah, Mon 26 Sep 2011, 19:36, closed)

It's not ad hominem if it's relevant to the issue
If I'd claimed you were too short to talk about maths, that would be ad hominem. Stating that the issue involved is one you come to realise and understand more easily if you've studied maths to a fairly high level, then pointing out that you have not, is an entirely relevant point (in the same way that I could not advise you on how to change the flow of a computer program).

I'm not claiming that you don't have a right to talk about mathematics in general (that WOULD be ad hominem) but that this is a very specific point therein.

Although it strikes me that this entire argument is somewhat pointless...
( MatJ LOOK, Tue 27 Sep 2011, 16:16, closed)

The smoking causing lung cancer is a seperate issue
In this case, there were significant control groups who did not smoke, where the instances of lung cancer were several magnitudes lower. You can find examples of such studies (one of which was carried out between 1951 and 1994) which clearly show smokers have a higher rate of lung cancer. Causation can only be inferred by comparing one set of circumstances with another - in this case, those who smoke versus those who don't. To prove causation in your example, we would need a seperate timeline where the smoking ban didn't come into effect, to see the true impact.

If you want to truly try to understand it, I suggest reading David Hume's views on the matter - here's a handy link to start you off; plato.stanford.edu/entries/hume/#CauIndInfNegPha
(Godwin's Lawyer is more evil than Hitler, Sun 25 Sep 2011, 23:32, closed)

Fair
point.
(dchurch bah, Mon 26 Sep 2011, 19:38, closed)