What do the top ten cities with the highest poverty rate all have in common?

Quote:

No, just a pretty common cum hoc ergo propter hoc logical fallacy.

Ah yes, a logical fallacy.

So what are the other possible explanations for the correlation?

Without a more compelling explanation it's hard to sustain an argument of Cum Hoc.

The ten American cities with the highest poverty rates have a long and steadfast history of Democratic governance, and you would have us believe it is uncorrelated.

While correlation may not unerringly imply causation, it very often does.

In any case, I'm happy to accept that rather than sustained Democratic governance causing high poverty rates, high poverty rates causes sustained Democratic governance. Presumably, if Democratic governance was capable of reducing poverty rates it would do so and pave the way for Republican governance.

As I've already suggested, I'm sure that you and (was it?) parados are prepared to argue that somehow right-wingers are the actual casue of the correlation, but I think we need to hear something more than "True that!"

You may not agree with it, but the argument that there is a correlation between Democratic governance and high poverty rates is hardly irrational.

It may not be that Democratic governance promotes poverty (although I would argue that is the case), but the correlation certainly doesn't require a jump to reach the conclusion that Democratic governance doesn't reduce poverty rates.

Quote:

You keep posting crap over and over cjhsa as if you think you will get a different result.

NO.
Its really very good.
U just lack the intellectual strength to understand it.





David

What do the top ten cities with the highest poverty rate all have in common?

On the contrary: without a more compelling explanation, it's hard to sustain an argument of causation. After all, causation requires some kind of evidence, whereas coincidence doesn't. If you are arguing that electing Democratic mayors causes poverty, then it's up to you to provide the proof, or at least provide some plausible theory that can explain the causal link between the two

Finn: While correlation may not unerringly imply causation, it very often does.

Joe: No, not really. If I break a mirror and then suffer some unrelated bad luck, I can easily correlate the breaking of the mirror with my subsequent bad luck, but I can't provide any sort of causal link between the two events.

Whether the one causes the other or vice versa, it's still a logical fallacy. If you want to accept logical fallacies as proof, then that's your affair. It says a lot more about you than it does about poverty in American cities.

I am certainly not prepared to argue that. Unlike you, I am not eager to embrace any common and obvious logical error just because it might fit with my political beliefs. That you are willing to do so is, on the other hand, no great surprise.

No, it doesn't require a jump. All it requires is the closing of one's eyes.

What are the facts of which you speak, and do you believe that the responsibility for local conditions is rightfully passed on to the outer rings of governance? (I suspect you do).

By your logic, the federal government is ulitmatly responsible for the poverty levels of each and every state, city, county, parrish and town.

Not quite Joe.

Cum Hoc implies that there is nothing more than correlation.

It's hard to imagine that you are unable to fathom the argument for a compelling explanation conservatives might make for a causative link between Democratic governance and high levels of poverty. It is not hard to imagine that you would require the obvious argument to forestall your claim of Cum Hoc.

As for a plausible theory, what possible chance is there than any conservative theory will meet your criteria for plausibility?

Never-the-less, to deprive you of your hyper-technical line of argument:

Democratic governance, typicaly, relies upon throwing taxpayer money at a problem to solve it. As respects poverty, Democratic governance has, reliably, resorted to throwing taxpayer money at the poor in an effort to bring them above the poverty level. Throwing money at the poor (e.g. Welfare) has no positive track record, at all, of resolving poverty and spawned any number of reasonable asertions that it has actually perpetuated it.

That you can identify one correlation that doesn't accurately imply causation in no way disproves or invalidates my contention.

Ad hominem.

Cum Hoc requires a jump.

Post hoc ergo propter hoc, Latin for "after this, therefore because (on account) of this", is a logical fallacy (of the questionable cause variety) which states, "Since that event followed this one, that event must have been caused by this one." It is often shortened to simply post hoc and is also sometimes referred to as false cause, coincidental correlation or correlation not causation. It is subtly different from the fallacy cum hoc ergo propter hoc, in which the chronological ordering of a correlation is insignificant.

Post hoc is a particularly tempting error because temporal sequence appears to be integral to causality. The fallacy lies in coming to a conclusion based solely on the order of events, rather than taking into account other factors that might rule out the connection. Most familiarly, many superstitious beliefs and magical thinking arise from this.

No offense, joe, but the phrase is post hoc, ergo propter hoc.

What do the top ten cities with the highest poverty rate all have in common?