I hope this is corrected later in the paper and my apologies if this is a stupid question but could you please explain how the example of gum chewing and abscesses makes sense?
That is, in the explanation you are making your decision based on evidence. Indeed, you’d be happy—or anyone would be happy—to hear you’re chewing gum once the results of the second study are known. How is that causal and not evidential?
I see later in the paper that gum chewing is evidence for the CGTA gene but that doesn’t make any sense. You can’t change whether or not you have the gene and the gum chewing is better for you at any rate. Still confused about the value of the gum chewing example.
I hope this is corrected later in the paper and my apologies if this is a stupid question but could you please explain how the example of gum chewing and abscesses makes sense?
That is, in the explanation you are making your decision based on evidence. Indeed, you’d be happy—or anyone would be happy—to hear you’re chewing gum once the results of the second study are known. How is that causal and not evidential?
I see later in the paper that gum chewing is evidence for the CGTA gene but that doesn’t make any sense. You can’t change whether or not you have the gene and the gum chewing is better for you at any rate. Still confused about the value of the gum chewing example.