Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

longship

(40,416 posts)
8. Sorry, I didn't take it that way.
Sat Jul 21, 2012, 12:20 AM
Jul 2012

Probably neither should you. Life is full of coincidences. It would be very wrong to assign causality to such random coincidences. To do so would be to committing a logical fallacy. It even has a fancy Latin title, Post hoc ergo propter hoc which translates roughly to, after that, therefore because of that. Just because two events happen in sequence doesn't mean that the earlier caused the later. Even when they both have elements similar -- in this case guns, violence, and death -- there is not necessarily a causal link.

In order to establish such a link, it would require data which we just do not have, nor are likely to have. So the only thing one can say is, "Meh! So what.

We may never know why these guys did these things. But it is entirely wrong to connect the two without some evidence to do so. For that reason, Okham's razor slices off your hypothesis as falsified.

Hope you get where I am coming from here.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

Latest Discussions»General Discussion»James Holmes was in Tucso...»Reply #8