To return to the case at hand: the decline of lynching may be an improvement in one area, but you have to weigh it against the explosions in the imprisonment and illegitimacy rates, the total societal collapse of a demographic that makes up over a tenth of the population, drug abuse, knockout games, and so on.
Do you think there’s a causal connection between the decline of lynching and the various ills you’ve listed?
How is causality relevant? The absence of continuous general increase is enough to falsify the Whig-history hypothesis, given that the Whig-history hypothesis is nothing more than the hypothesis of continuous general increase—unless we add to the hypothesis the possibility of ‘counterrevolutionary’ periods where immoral, anti-Whig groups take power and immorality increases, but expressing concern over things like illegitimacy rates, knockout games, and inner-city dysfunction is an outgroup marker for Whigs.
Demonstrating causality would be doing more work than is necessary. To argue against the hypothesis that the values of A, B, C, … are all increasing, you don’t need to show that an increase in the value of A leads to decreases in any of B, C, …; you just need to demonstrate that the value of at least one of A, B, C, … is not increasing.
(To avert the negative connotations the above paragraph would likely otherwise have: no, I don’t think the decline of lynching caused those various ills.)
To return to the case at hand: the decline of lynching (A) may be an improvement in one area, but you have to weigh it against the explosions in the imprisonment (B) and illegitimacy rates (C), the total societal collapse of a demographic that makes up over a tenth of the population (D), drug abuse (E), knockout games (???), and so on.
(parentheticals added).
You were originally arguing that some weighted sum of A, B, C… was increasing. NancyLebovitz was pointing out that A has clearly decreased, and so for the sum to increase on average, there has to be a correlation between A decreasing and B, C, … increasing. Then she asked if you thought this correlation was causal.
In response, you punted and changed the argument to:
The absence of continuous general increase is enough to falsify the Whig-history hypothesis, given that the Whig-history hypothesis is nothing more than the hypothesis of continuous general increase
which was a really nice tautological argument.
So while showing causality is “more work than is necessary” for disproving the straw-Whiggery of your previous comment, it doesn’t mean anything for the point NancyLebovitz was raising.
Do you think there’s a causal connection between the decline of lynching and the various ills you’ve listed?
How is causality relevant? The absence of continuous general increase is enough to falsify the Whig-history hypothesis, given that the Whig-history hypothesis is nothing more than the hypothesis of continuous general increase—unless we add to the hypothesis the possibility of ‘counterrevolutionary’ periods where immoral, anti-Whig groups take power and immorality increases, but expressing concern over things like illegitimacy rates, knockout games, and inner-city dysfunction is an outgroup marker for Whigs.
You need evidence actual decline to justify reaction. Othewise, why reverse random drift?
This is always a bad sign in an argument. If causality doesn’t matter, what does?
Demonstrating causality would be doing more work than is necessary. To argue against the hypothesis that the values of A, B, C, … are all increasing, you don’t need to show that an increase in the value of A leads to decreases in any of B, C, …; you just need to demonstrate that the value of at least one of A, B, C, … is not increasing.
(To avert the negative connotations the above paragraph would likely otherwise have: no, I don’t think the decline of lynching caused those various ills.)
(parentheticals added).
You were originally arguing that some weighted sum of A, B, C… was increasing. NancyLebovitz was pointing out that A has clearly decreased, and so for the sum to increase on average, there has to be a correlation between A decreasing and B, C, … increasing. Then she asked if you thought this correlation was causal.
In response, you punted and changed the argument to:
which was a really nice tautological argument.
So while showing causality is “more work than is necessary” for disproving the straw-Whiggery of your previous comment, it doesn’t mean anything for the point NancyLebovitz was raising.