The website and the book coincide together in that they both speak about causes and effects, that the cause precedes the effect, the cause makes a difference, and we should trace the cause backwards in order to see what really caused the effect.
The website states that:
"1. The cause must precede the event in time. On one hand, arguments that have the effect before the cause are examples of the relatively rare fallacy of reverse causation. On the other, arguments whose only proof of causation is that the effect followed the cause are examples of fallacious post hoc reasoning.
2. Even a strong correlation is insufficient to prove causation. Other possible explanations for such a strong correlation include coincidence, reversed causation, and missing something that is the cause of both the original 'cause' and its purported 'effect.'"
The book also tells us how to look for a cause:
“Conjecture possible causes, and then by experiment eliminate them until there is only one. Check that one: Does it make a difference? If the purported cause is eliminated, is there still the effect? Could there be a common cause?”
Yes there are def some differences between the book and website. I actually liked the website a lot more than the book because it had clear examples and details that were easy to understand. The website also had example exercises that you can take, so its like a quiz and it gives you the correct answer with analysis afterwards. The website had everything organzied into one so all you had to do was like thorugh the table of contents.
ReplyDeleteYeah, I agreed with you that the website and the book shared similar points. It did have some differences though. However, I liked the book's explaination more maybe because of the examples or how they explain the subject seem to be a lot more simple than the website. Both are a good reference however.
ReplyDelete