Posted on 12/16/2003 4:37:23 AM PST by governsleastgovernsbest
You've distorted an ontological certainty into an epistemological compulsion. All effects have a cause. Not all causes are knowable. So it's one thing to say it happened, there must be an explanation (obviously true), and quite another thing to say it happened, let's assign an explanation (why?). To assign a cause without evidence is to sort among the sheep guts for a sign.
Let's not be silly. Katie changed her demeanor. It might because you yelled and it might be because she's preoccupied by holiday shopping. Since we have equal evidence for both theories (none.) neither can be asserted.
This is a long thread about nothing. Nobody has any clue why Katie's demeanor was different today.
Well, since we are striving for precision, I must point out you are wrong.
We do have evidence for scenario #1, since we observed her behavior and demeanor yesterday, and faxes, email, and telephone calls ensued (*evidence*) and today she appears with a toned down attitude.
Holiday shopping? You're right. No evidence she does her own.
Mind you, I do think there is something to the idea she was told to ratchet it down a bit thanks to the inundation of irate viewers' complaints, but this post is addressing your incorrect assertion that we have "no evidence" as to at least one reason she behaved differently today.
And I'll just add that we have presented other instances where the audience outcry has resulted in changes. I am fond of my Arnett example.
NO YOU DON'T!!!! The letters and faxes are not "evidence"!!!! There is no question the letters and faxes EXIST!!! Good grief.
Now I understand how the O.J. jury could happen.
You have an observation: demeanor 1. You have the letters and faxes. You have a second observation: demeanor 2.
You have no EVIDENCE OF A CONNECTION between the faxes and the change between 1 and 2. NONE. NOTHING.
This not new. Come on. Post hoc ergo propter hoc.
The Reagen movie is a case in contrast, and should make you doubt the explanation, rather than accept it. There was EVIDENCE of a connection. We know the network noticed the outcry; they commented on it, etc.
I really didn't mean to make such a big deal of this. But, please. Apparently there are lots of people walking around who can't distinguish between causation and correlation.
I'm sorry,I just noticed this one.
Of course, an "outcry" can result in a "change". We are not arguing over whether it CAN, nor are we arguing over whether it HAS, nor are we arguing over whether it might have in this instance.
NONE OF THIS IS RELEVANT.
CBS explicitly denied that they pulled The Regans in response to public outcry.
Here's the URL of an article in which CBS head Moonves "absolutely denies" that he yielded to public pressure in pulling The Reagans.
http://gossipmagazine.com/managearticle.asp?C=60&A=353
Yet you were willing to find "evidence" of cause and effect in that case. Why aren't we entitled to do the same in this case?
CBS explicitly denied that they pulled The Reagans in response to public outcry.
Here's the URL of an article in which CBS head Moonves "absolutely denies" that he yielded to public pressure in pulling The Reagans.
http://gossipmagazine.com/managearticle.asp?C=60&A=353
Yet you were willing to find "evidence" of cause and effect in that case. Why aren't we entitled to do the same in this case?
Oh, yoohoo, Mr. correlation/causation! I went out of my way to say in my post that there is **not proof**, though I *thought* it more possible than not, because we know about audience response, not holiday shopping, and we know of other instances where it has influenced network decisions.
Get it?
My point remains that you have absolutely no evidence to connect the two things you are connecting. Not a shred, not a suggestion. Nothing.
And I doubt I'm going to make you understand that.
It does show awareness of the "outcry" at a decision-making level within the organization, and awareness would be the first, or threshold thing you would need to demonstrate.
In other words, a denial of causation by someone whose veracity you don't trust is more evidence of possible causation than is silence from that same someone.
Exactly. This is precisely your logical error, and this error is in every list of logical fallacies going back at least to Aristotle.
The sequence is a sequence. It is evidence of NOTHING. PRECISELY NOTHING.
Do you honestly not understand this? This is not all a joke?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.