mail columnist stephen glover comments on leonard's consumption of drugs

News about Leonard Cohen and his work, press, radio & TV programs etc.
sebmelmoth2003
Posts: 892
Joined: Tue Jul 22, 2008 12:41 pm

mail columnist stephen glover comments on leonard's consumption of drugs

Postby sebmelmoth2003 » Fri Jan 27, 2017 1:29 pm

...Of course, it doesn’t follow ineluctably that repeated drug abuse by celebrities will hasten their demise.

The singer Leonard Cohen, who ingested an enormous amount of illegal substances when he was younger, survived until he had a fatal fall in his home last month at the fairly advanced age of 82...


http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/artic ... abuse.html
I'm your fan
Posts: 48
Joined: Fri Mar 05, 2004 2:45 pm

Re: mail columnist stephen glover comments on leonard's consumption of drugs

Postby I'm your fan » Mon Jan 30, 2017 10:07 am

This is a fallacy. A logical fallacy: In logic, a fallacy (from Latin: fallacy, 'deception') is an argument or a postulate that seems valid, but it is not.
And that fallacy has a name: Cum hoc ergo propter hoc (in Latin, 'with this, therefore because of this') is a fallacy that is committed by inferring that two or more events are connected causally because they occur together. That is, the fallacy consists in inferring that there is a causal relation between two or more events because a statistical correlation between them has been observed. This fallacy is often refuted by the phrase "correlation does not imply causality".

In general, the fallacy is that given two events, A and B, to discover a statistical correlation between both, it is a mistake to infer that A causes B because it could be that B causes A, or it could also be that a third event causes both A as B, thus explaining the correlation. There are at least four other possibilities:

Let B be the cause of A.
That there is a third unknown factor that is really the cause of the relationship between A and B.
Let the relationship be so complex and numerous that the facts are simple coincidences.
Let B be the cause of A and at the same time A be that of B, that is to say, agree, be a synergistic or symbiotic relationship where the union catalyzes the effects that are observed.

Consider the following argument:

Many cannabis users have psychiatric problems, and many people with psychiatric problems consume cannabis.
Therefore, cannabis use causes psychiatric problems.

Although the conclusion may be true, the argument is fallacious because the mere correlation between cannabis use and psychiatric problems can not guarantee a cause and effect relationship. It could be that the use of cannabis causes psychiatric problems, but it could also be that psychiatric problems caused cannabis use, or that both factors were caused by a third party, such as television. Assuming that such a thing causes such another may be tempting, but more information, in addition to statistical correlation, is needed to correctly infer that there is a causal relationship between one event and another.

This is like we stated the following argument:

Many people who ingested an enormous amount of illegal substances when he/she was younger, survived to the effects of such substances.
Such people had a fatal fall at the fairly advanced age of 82 who costed his/her life...

Return to “News”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 12 guests