@DrewDad,
I’m done playing semantic games with you, DrewDad. There is no profit in it for either of us or anyone else. I see no substantial difference between “Correlation can imply causation” and “Correlation implies there can be a cause and effect relationship.”
Furthermore; laboratory definitions just don’t always stand up to
reason in the real world. In the real world; people recognize that correlation can indeed
imply causation. This is evidenced by the three decades of Surgeon General’s warnings based almost entirely on what dogmatic scientists, statisticians, and elitist self-described intellectuals would consider Post hoc ergo propter hoc (after this, therefore because of this). Obviously, this is considered a logical fallacy for good reason… but it is hardly an absolute.
In the real world, when the consequences of failing to arrive at
any conclusion can be
assumed to cost human lives; reasonable people are forced to make an educated guess. For instance; most reasonable people would want a new drug taken off the market immediately if takers of same were committing suicide in crazy percentages that significantly deviated from those of competing medications. Few people, outside of those deriving income from the drug, would want to take a “let’s just wait and see” until we can actually
prove causation approach, because we wouldn’t want to violate some dogmatic scientific principle. While logically sound in the laboratory; that just doesn’t always work in the real world.
Smoking and cancer provides an excellent example of this. Long before science was able to
prove causation; the correlation between smoking and cancer was so pronounced (and deadly important) that it demanded recognition. While some scientists may have scoffed; dogmatically insisting the principle of
correlation does not imply causation, post hoc ergo propter hoc, bla bla bla; the majority of reasonable human beings considered the
implied causation more compelling than dogmatic adherence to a scientific principle. Without looking; I’d wager that the majority of scientists, statisticians, and elitist self-described intellectuals agreed prior to 1996 as well.
This is as it should be. When it comes to matters of life-and-death; the luxury of adhering to dogmatic scientific principles isn’t always prudent. A preponderance of whatever available evidence exists, to make the most educated guess possible, sometimes has to suffice. This means considering all relevant factual data, regardless of how complete or comprehensive, and making the best judgment possible from whatever is at your disposal.
The smoking/cancer concern didn’t lend itself to laboratory testing. Identifying, let alone ruling out, all potential confounding variables is basically impossible. When one considers the observed link between smoking and alcohol use, the tendency for alcoholics (like most addicts) to lie about it, the fact that drug use is illegal, the unknown genetic predispositions, etc., etc, etc, it quickly becomes apparent that no matter how carefully you try to dissect your test group the potential for faulty information and unknowns is overwhelmingly immeasurable. And this before you even consider that some chain smokers never get cancer. (I read of a woman who lived to be 119 who credited her longevity to having the good sense to quit smoking in her 90’s.
) And this is also before considering that a fair number of people who claim to have never smoked get this same cancer. The simple truth is; in 1995 there was neither a way to eliminate all potential confounding variables nor any realistic way to accurately measure the connection under varying conditions (the confounding variables essentially render this type of isolation impossible, in any realistically accurate way)… yet the underlying correlation so strongly implied causation that it demanded recognition long before that. I’d wager you, yourself, were bright enough to recognize it before 1996 too (depending on your age, of course).
I should probably mention that I appreciate your apparent change in tone, because I do. I hope I’ve reined mine in noticeably as well.
This whole convoluted tangent isn’t really terribly important to the greater discussion, anyway. The only thing I hoped to demonstrate was that no relevant facts are
meaningless. Of all the things that a potential murderer might consider; I can only assume the type of punishment isn’t terribly high on his list of considerations. Off the top of my head; I’d guess (guessing at the order too, I’m sure there’s no blueprint):
1. Will I burn in Hell?
2. Does this person deserve to die (or the beating that results in death).
3. Can I live with myself if I do this thing or if I plan to do it if the situation calls for it while committing a crime?
4. Can I get away with it and/or will it help or hurt my chances of getting away with a crime? If financial motive; is it worth it (these perps likely do consider number .5 in greater numbers)?
5. What happens if I do get caught?
And even those questions only apply to potential murderers who consider the consequences at all, which I can only guess might be half. I think the DOJ said half of all murder victims are intimates, and 2/3rds of those are shot to death. Shooters who plan not to get caught, probably do consider the consequences of getting caught, as often as not. This is all guesswork, of course. I’m no Raskolnikov, but I have considered how I might behave, were I so inclined. For myself; I see very little light between a life or death sentence… though I’m sure I’d prefer life.
Again; I find the argument for prevention of recidivism a heck of a lot more compelling. Convicted murderers have killed more innocents (post conviction) than the State ever has.
