Undecided for 2012 Elections? Here Let Me Help You.

If you are still undecided about your vote for the Presidential elections of 2012 here's some important information that might help you. Now, you probably think I'm going to talk about a candidate right now.

That would make you incorrect.

I'm going to talk about much more important things. And here they are:
Correlation vs Causation
Circular Arguments

Once you understand these two items, you will understand who is the better choice and how you have been manipulated in the past. And once you get over the feeling of being "stupid, angry" etc...you can move on...haha, get it move on. I crack me up, I really do!


OK, let's start with correlation vs causation

(I swiped this from wikipedia...since we all know it can be edited later after I post it)

phrase used in science and statistics to emphasize that a correlation between two variables does not automatically imply that one causes the other (though correlation is necessary for linear causation in the absence of any third and countervailing causative variable, it can indicate possible causes or areas for further investigation; in other words, correlation is a hint).

The opposite belief, correlation proves causation, is a logical fallacy by which two events that occur together are claimed to have a cause-and-effect relationship. The fallacy is also known ascum hoc ergo propter hoc (Latin for "with this, therefore because of this") and false cause. It is a common fallacy in which it is assumed that, because two things or events occur together, one must be the cause of the other. By contrast, the fallacy, post hoc ergo propter hoc, requires that one event occur after the other, and so may be considered a related fallacy.

Let's take an obvious advertising campaign that for some reason seems to still work on certain section of the American population, and apply this truth that correlation does not equal causation.
We all know the Bain commercials that accuse Romney of causing the death of the wife of the subject in the commercial because "Romney worked for Bain and Bain closed the plant and they lost their health insurance" so the conclusion being made is that Romney caused the death of the woman.

Using emotional tactics, that commercial takes correlation: Bain & Romney and induced causation Romney caused death. The only truth in that commercial is the correlation. Romney DID work at Bain.  The commercial assumes you are too stupid to figure out that there is a THIRD causative variable. It even plants that idea in your head.

Even my explanation can be used as a good example of causation vs correlation. Let's go:
I told you that the commercial assumes you are too stupid to figure out there is a THIRD causative variable.
Why am I correct? Because there IS an absence of a third variable in my statement. <--- causation

Now I'd like to say here that I don't believe the majority of Americans are too stupid to figure this out. I believe that most have never been taught about this subject, and I'll even go further to say that I believe they haven't been taught about this subject quite purposely.

But if you now look at everything that is said to you with this fresh set of "eyes", no matter who is the speaker, you can think for yourself.  No more will you be co-opted by your friends and family when they say that every Politician lies, therefore it doesn't matter. Correlation vs Causation Apply this truth to that argument and then choose wisely knowing IT DOES MATTER.

OK next important topic: circular reasoning/argument

Taken from the following website: http://ksuweb.kennesaw.edu/~shagin/logfal-pbc-circular.htm


Circular reasoning is an attempt to support a statement by simply repeating the statement in different or stronger terms.  In this fallacy, the reason given is nothing more than a restatement of the conclusion that poses as the reason for the conclusion.  To say, “You should exercise because it’s good for you” is really saying, “You should exercise because you should exercise.”

It shares much with the false authority fallacy because we accept these statements based solely on the fact that someone else claims it to be so.  Often, we feel we can trust another person so much that we often accept his claims without testing the logic.  This is called blind trust, and it is very dangerous.  We might as well just talk in circles. 


 A side story on Circular reasoning, and example. Before Mr. Barnett (see two posts below this story) turned me for thought crimes, like the little Hitler-Youth did in the 30's and 40's, to facebook, he had friended me on his page. I remember seeing a post of his (which I did not screenshot at the time unfortunately) where he ranted something to the effect that we should not give him pieces of the story and tell him to come to his own conclusions and that by doing so he would see the truth of the situation, but that he felt that was what a reporter was for, that it was their job to dig and dig and then tell the story, not his job.  <----Circular Argument ...trusting another person solely on the fact that someone else claims it to be so. 

Now, if you apply both of these two topics into any political argument that you see posted or spoken about you should be able to dissect the argument to understand if either of these two situations is being used to manipulate you into thinking and believing as the person wishes you to believe. And then you can decide for yourself if they are correct or using faulty logic and circular reasoning to dupe you.