mommykink@lemmy.world to Lemmy Shitpost@lemmy.worldEnglish · 8 months agoCumlemmy.worldimagemessage-square30fedilinkarrow-up1394arrow-down124
arrow-up1370arrow-down1imageCumlemmy.worldmommykink@lemmy.world to Lemmy Shitpost@lemmy.worldEnglish · 8 months agomessage-square30fedilink
minus-squarelapes@kbin.sociallinkfedilinkarrow-up8·8 months agohttps://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Correlation_does_not_imply_causation#
minus-squarenahuse@sh.itjust.workslinkfedilinkarrow-up3arrow-down3·edit-28 months agoIn this case, then, it would be pro hoc, since the crankiness comes after the not eating. Right?
minus-squareCTDummy@lemm.eelinkfedilinkarrow-up12·8 months agoI though it was post hoc, ergo propter hoc? After the fact, therefore because of the fact?
minus-squarenahuse@sh.itjust.workslinkfedilinkarrow-up3arrow-down2·edit-28 months agoYeah, that’s what I mean. The person I was responding to was comparing it to cum hoc which means that the two events being considered simultaneously, which I don’t think is correct.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Correlation_does_not_imply_causation#
In this case, then, it would be pro hoc, since the crankiness comes after the not eating.
Right?
I though it was post hoc, ergo propter hoc? After the fact, therefore because of the fact?
Yeah, that’s what I mean.
The person I was responding to was comparing it to cum hoc which means that the two events being considered simultaneously, which I don’t think is correct.
deleted by creator