>>16963857
I've heard of spurious causation but don't see how correlation could be spurious since its either statistically there or it isn't.

>>16963857
why is Portugal as anti-islam as Eastern Europe?

>>16963857
Remember that guy who would say "there is no such thing as a coincidence"?

Great discussion guys, very deep and rewarding, I really enjoyed reading the arguments of both sides of this heated controversy, I think we all learned a lot.

>>16963974
>I've heard of spurious causation
And yet "spurious causation" gets zero hits on google. You might have dreamed that. "Spurious correlation" on the other hand gets a lot of hits on google.
>don't see how correlation could be spurious since its either statistically there or it isn't.
exactly

spurious just means weak, it's not a conspiracy

>>16963977
Both these maps also correlate with maps of GDP per capita, Catholicism/Protestantism vs Orthodoxy, capitalism vs communism, Latin vs Greek/Old Church Slavonic, Western Roman Empire vs Eastern Roman Empire, etc etc.

also grammar cases dropped due to influence of foreign language, english dropped during the saxon exchange so that all the migrant groups can communicate with each other (saxon jutes danes britons), so yes it is actual historical parallel

>>16964814
No, it doesn't. A so-called spurious correlation is a non-causal correlation, it can be a very strong correlation and yet be non-causal, but the word "spurious" is the wrong word to use, since it means:
>Spurious describes something false, counterfeit, or inauthentic that appears genuine but is not, often referring to invalid arguments, claims, or logic. It signifies a lack of authenticity or a deceptive, illogical origin rather than a genuine one.
and since a correlation is a correlation, regardless of any causality.

>>16963857
Arabic has cases too btw christshit :)

>>16964832
So? The map is showing the Indo-European language that is the dominant language of each country on the left and projected future Muslim population percentage in these same countries on the right. There is a clear correlation there whether you like it or not, fuckface. Nowhere did I say there's a correlation between the number of cases in any language whatsoever globally and the percentage of Muslims. Learn basic fucking argumentation, retard.

>>16964832
Also, for your info classical Quranic Arabic has cases but modern Arabic vernaculars are simplified analytic languages, it's like comparing Latin to Romance languages, just that they call them all Arabic.

>>16963857
True. Correlations are correlations. However most correlations are a lot less meaningful than people would like to believe.

>>16964835
Nice pilpul, christbride
Really taking after your master well :)

File: 1768159982642876.png (135.8 KB)

135.8 KB PNG

>>16964840
Why don't you pilpul on my peenor until it covers you in jewjuice? (:

>>16964840
Again, a correlation is a correlation, fuckface. Showing a correlation does not mean that you are saying or implying that the correlation is causal, nor does it mean that you are necessarily signaling any particular opinion by showing it. You are just proving my point with this thread, low-IQ brainwashed gullible college-cuck. kys

>>16964847
Christcuck, you know that if your eye offends you you're supposed to pluck it out right? Bet you won't

>>16964849
Learn basic fucking argumentation. You are the reason why you're supposed to learn basic fucking logic before engaging in discussions. Fucking worthless shitposts that just derail and shit up threads. Fuck off and read one page of a basic logic book, fuckface.

>>16964849
I'm actually a Jew

>>16964856
No functional difference between jewdaism and christcuckery, hence the term Judeo-Christianity

>>16964853
Muslims go to wealthier W.Euro countries because why would they go to Slavic shitholes? That's the real correlation. Or rather, the correlation is between poverty and complexity of grammar. If your language is too convoluted you spent too little time on things that make cents.

>>16964839
No. There's usually some factor that is driving it and not pure randomness. Having such a factor by definition means it's meaningful. Utter chance is what's rare, unless you have just two points for each of the two correlating factors.