It’s a bit confusing when you don’t make clear that you’re using the words in a restricted sense, as opposed to the common one.

But, see, what’s common to you wasn’t common to me. I had to actually look it up because I was taught “correlation” and “causation” in the way I used it in the post. I didn’t even know that there were different kinds of causational arguments before you challenged me on it.

And, I mean, that’s going to happen in any debate. In feminism, one person’s definition of, say, pornography will most likely differ from another’s. In fact, that’s partly what sparks a lot of the nasty name calling between “anti-porn” and “sex-positive” feminists (two more terms that have a different common definition depending on the circle they’re used in).

But I will try to more clearly define the use of terms in the future. After all, one can never know what people are taking from one’s post.

Basically, any situation where your current knowledge leads you to believe X is quite improbable, and in which you gain new knowledge (that’s trustworthy enough), perhaps that invalidates your current knowledge, or perhaps that is simply more specific, that leads you to to believe X is actually pretty probable.

And, on reflection, only a small subset of these are usually called “epiphanies”. The rest are just called “learning”.

As far as causality, I suppose your distinction serves your purpose. I only question whether the same distinction is usually made, or whether this particular way of using the words is particular, or even novel, to you. It’s a bit confusing when you don’t make clear that you’re using the words in a restricted sense, as opposed to the common one.

I won’t be back to this thread, sadly. I’m cracking down on procrastination, and blog commenting has to go.

The point of using this simplistic model is to have an easy way in which to move away from the all or nothing view. For instance, I wrote on how I felt that Blizzard’s choice in female armour in World of Warcraft encouraged in-game sexism. Another blogger attacked me saying that I was accusing Blizzard of forcing young men to be sexist. She refused to see that there was a difference between influence and force.

In this case, I’d label her argument as “causational” — meaning that if WoW causes sexism, then the people who play WoW must become sexist. Whereas, I was trying to imply a “correlational” link, meaning that there is a connection between the sexism in WoW and the players being sexist, but playing WoW does not force you to be(come) sexist.

Simplicity in language here is important, which is why I tried to clearly define what I meant by “correlation does not equal casuation.” And, anyway, I somehow doubt people who buy into the dichotomy that I outlined above are really interested in debating the finer points of causality

This reasoning doesn’t hold up. If I play three hours of Heart Chest Ripping Action Combat 7 every day for a year, and it increases the probability that I will commit some violent action in real life by twenty percent, then it has caused something—an increase in the probability of violence. Now, it can’t directly cause the action itself, but it’s a mistake to say it hasn’t caused anything. (Perhaps just a mistaken restriction of the usage of “cause”.)

For something to be caused, it’s not necessary that it be compelled. A cause of some event X is simply anything that increases the probability of X. Or, if you’re looking at things in hindsight, it’s something that was a necessary, but not sufficient, precondition of X happening. Would I have gone on my genocidal rampage if I hadn’t played HCRAC7? What if I hadn’t watched CSI and L&O religiously? What if the nightly news had been more positive? How about if I hadn’t been born a psychopath? What about my severe physical abuse in childhood? If the absence of one of those things would have prevented a genocidal rampage, then it was a cause of said rampage. If the absence of any two would have prevented it, I suppose they all could be said to be weak causes.

Also, it’s a truism that we won’t believe things we don’t want to. If we believe something unpleasant, we might wish we hadn’t formed the belief in the first place, but we don’t wish to stop believing it. If something influences you so that you form a particular belief, it causes that belief. (Remember, necessary but not sufficient.)