This is pretty great:
Stolen here: On correlation, causation, and the "real" cause of autism
:rasta:
Stolen here: On correlation, causation, and the "real" cause of autism
:rasta:
This is pretty great:
![]()
Stolen here: On correlation, causation, and the "real" cause of autism
:rasta:
Funny that in your example the graph creator fell for the logical fallacy he is pointing out.
The fact that more people are diagnosed with autistic behavior patterns, does not mean that more people have autism. It just means more people are diagnosed. This could be because more people are going to psychiatrists. It could be because the DSMV makes it easier to push pill... I mean, diagnose people as suffering from mental illnesses. It could be a lot of things and generally, events don't happen because of a single factor, but a complex interaction of various factors.
The graph is ironically trying to convey that organic food causes autism in people. Thats either true or its not. If its not true, then you cant pick another factor out and say the author of the graph fell for a logical fallacy himself, because thats not the case (at least not in the way you tried to illustrate). If you want to make the point hes making, your argument is entirely invalid (by way of the very foundations of logic).
Your last straw is to claim that idiots would get the wrong idea, which you have so phantastically demonstrated, but that is not a problem of logic. its a problem of improper education.
and thats the ultimate reason people like luke, or you, or anyone else who skipped i wanna be smartypants class, shouldnt be talking about logic or its fallacies. most of these "fallacies" are only called "logical fallacies" because someone incorrectly named them that.
Another problem you fell for is that if you try to be smart about something thats like totally common knowledge (autism vs. diagnosed autism), youre technically lots of dumb.