Talk:Wrong direction
 | This redirect does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||
 | The contents of the Wrong direction page were merged into Correlation does not imply causation on 8 July 2017 and it now redirects there. For the contribution history and old versions of the merged article please see its history. |
--Taak 01:22, 7 Apr 2004 (UTC)
We could do with some real-world examples of wrong direction reasoning, where is some element of mutual causation (typically a form of vicious circle). I'm not sure how my ideas would be best fitted in. For example:
- The manager of a bar doesn't bother creating a no-smoking area, giving the excuse that "all our customers smoke". In reality, non-smokers don't tend to visit because it is smoky.
- In my boarding school days, I often got cold sores in the winter months. Some of the medical staff there told me it was because "you've been licking your lips". What nonsense. It's the other way round - the sores always came first, and create the compulsion to lick, though it does spread the infection further.
-- Smjg 18:46, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
Thinking about the first example reminds me of another fallacy I'm not sure if has a page here: incomplete reasoning. On a visit to one pub in Loughborough, I noticed a notice giving an excuse for a "smoking allowed throughout" policy, namely that the premises are too small for separate smoking and non-smoking areas. This is only half the story - if that's your excuse, why can't we have a completely non-smoking pub in town for once? -- Smjg 18:58, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
Apocrypha must go[edit]
The following (2nd para) has no citation, and judging by google and snopes.com, there is unlikely to ever be one:
For instance, a tobacco company executive once suggested that cancer caused smoking as a matter of pain relief, to explain the high correlation between them.
Without a ref, it's one of those statements that really doesn't look good. Deleted. Centrepull (talk) 13:22, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
redirect/merge[edit]
The name looks non-notable. The concept itself is an instance of correlation does not imply causation (see "reverse causation"). The article has one sentence plus a bunch of mediocre examples. --174.119.182.107 (talk) 02:22, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
