Reality check:
The real world is complicated. An outcome in the real world is rarely, if ever, driven by one single factor. Too many times I see this board settle into arguments that revolve around univariate thinking.
Most often this is because someone doesn't like a statement that says "X has a positive/negative impact on Y". They tend to often drag out a bad counter example. "A has a bigger X than B, yet their Y is counter to what you said, therefore you are wrong."
This argument is dumb, and is actually a fallacy. It's best to remember that "X has a positive/negative impact on Y" has an unspoken caveat in the real world. That caveat is "All other things being equal..." Meaning that if everything was the same, the one with the larger X would have the stated impact on Y.
For a more concrete example:
The more miles driven by Americans the more automobile deaths we will have. (X has a positive numerical impact on Y)
The counter argument is very simple to make:
In the past we drove alot less, but the deaths per mile were higher, here's a chart:
And that seems to be a very convincing argument. In fact, the two trends are essentially opposite to each other.
Of course, the problem is that deaths in automobiles are not driven (pun intended) by miles on the road alone. Remember that unspoken caveat? All things being equal? That applies very easily to cars. Safety features in chars have changed dramatically over the last near century. Seatbelts, air bags, crumple zones, improved road and highway design, breakaway road signs, safety glass, etc. have all been designed and implemented in order to save lives in accidents. https://www.bts.gov/archive/publicat...16/tables/half
At the end of the day arguing against a single variable in isolation tends to end up going nowhere. The word doesn't revolve around one single thing. That one variable can be true, but then in certain cases be counteracted by the impact of other variables. Finding a counter-example without taking those other things into account doesn't do anything except show how little you know of how the world works.
The real world is complicated. An outcome in the real world is rarely, if ever, driven by one single factor. Too many times I see this board settle into arguments that revolve around univariate thinking.
Most often this is because someone doesn't like a statement that says "X has a positive/negative impact on Y". They tend to often drag out a bad counter example. "A has a bigger X than B, yet their Y is counter to what you said, therefore you are wrong."
This argument is dumb, and is actually a fallacy. It's best to remember that "X has a positive/negative impact on Y" has an unspoken caveat in the real world. That caveat is "All other things being equal..." Meaning that if everything was the same, the one with the larger X would have the stated impact on Y.
For a more concrete example:
The more miles driven by Americans the more automobile deaths we will have. (X has a positive numerical impact on Y)
This should make sense. After all, the more you are on the road, the more likley you are to be in a deadly accident.
The counter argument is very simple to make:
In the past we drove alot less, but the deaths per mile were higher, here's a chart:
And that seems to be a very convincing argument. In fact, the two trends are essentially opposite to each other.
Of course, the problem is that deaths in automobiles are not driven (pun intended) by miles on the road alone. Remember that unspoken caveat? All things being equal? That applies very easily to cars. Safety features in chars have changed dramatically over the last near century. Seatbelts, air bags, crumple zones, improved road and highway design, breakaway road signs, safety glass, etc. have all been designed and implemented in order to save lives in accidents. https://www.bts.gov/archive/publicat...16/tables/half
At the end of the day arguing against a single variable in isolation tends to end up going nowhere. The word doesn't revolve around one single thing. That one variable can be true, but then in certain cases be counteracted by the impact of other variables. Finding a counter-example without taking those other things into account doesn't do anything except show how little you know of how the world works.
Comment