Amazon.com Widgets

# Since everyone who consumed butter in the 18th century has died, while no one from the same time period died from margarine consumption, is this statistical evidence of butter being bad (YES) or butter being good (NO)?

Since everyone who consumed butter in the 18th century has died, while no one from the same time period died from margarine consumption, is this statistical evidence of butter being bad (YES) or butter being good (NO)?
• ## Hempel's Paradox Supports Statistically, but Defies Intuition

Hempel's paradox can be used as an example to show that this statement is true.

Quoting Wikipedia so you won't have to Google and find this exact source for yourself:

"The Raven paradox, also known as Hempel's paradox or Hempel's ravens is a paradox arising from the question of what constitutes evidence for a statement. Observing objects that are neither black nor ravens may formally increase the likelihood that all ravens are black—even though intuitively these observations are unrelated."

This shows that these two points do correlate, that no one has survived from the 18th century, and that butter is unhealthy.

We can't rely on intuition to make proper judgments about this question. Intuitively, we know that people from the 18th century couldn't be alive regardless of the consumption of butter. From there, we instinctively assume this is a sort of dead argument, but alas it is not!

Although it doesn't prove that butter is the cause of death, or completely proves that butter is unhealthy, it does increase the PROBABILITY that butter is indeed unhealthy, and is therefore statistically significant.

HUZZAH!

• ## That is a fallacy if I ever saw a fallacy

I'm going to quote here "Since everyone who consumed butter in the 18th century has died." That implies all the people who didn't consume butter in the 18th century is still alive. Everybody from the 18th century's dead. Even the guys who consumed butter or margarine. But butter is good, because it makes everything taste good.

• ## Everyone in the same time period who ate margarine died, too.

So, huzzah for sophistry? If you'd demonstrated that they'd all died of butter consumption, perhaps, but you've got 100% of the people who ate butter dying, compared to 100% of the people who ate margarine. So what the devil is up with this question? You can't possibly be this stupid.

• ## Try getting that one by peer review.

Clearly this questioner does not have a basic understanding of either the scientific method or even statistics.
Considering that there is no causal linkage to the deaths of people in the 18th century TO butter, and margarine didn't exist, this is a ludicrous claim at best. Another ridiculous question intended to just mess with people.

• ## This question is to let fly the dogs of faulty logic

Statistically butter can be shown to be bad if one accepts this faulty notion of events. There are more facts important to this issue which need to be brought forward.. See if you can find them without using pejorative epithets. My experience with this site is that many people are suffering from "Digital Dementia".

• ## Blah Blah Blah

It is not, really, difficult to do basic nutrition classes in grade school but it is, CLEARLY
needed.

A fat is a fat and fats CANNOT do what protien and carbs do and ANY ONE cannot absorb
a lot of fat if it is eaten too much and too often.
Insects won't eat margarine but will eat butter as if it matters