I'm struggling to follow this portion of the curriculum because of how far it strays from a rigorous discussion of causal inference. Generally, in my prior learning, prediction is distinct from causal inference (because prediction doesn't care whether you have identified a true cause or some other relationship, just whether it can predict the result), but I think when Ping says hypotheses make predictions, he means "hypotheses are testable". That's sensible, and foundational to an inductive approach (vs. the deductive approach in the formal logic section). It is strange for it to appear 10 lessons deep in this section, though.
And I agree that LSAT style questions incorporated would be much more beneficial to absorb this information. We all took some form of science classes in school; we know what hypotheses are. What we don't know is how the LSAT use these to trick us!
Out of all the sections in Foundations, Logic of Causation is the most confusing. Understanding how this relates to the LSAT first would be more beneficial. I feel like I'm trying to understand abstract concepts with no clue where this is going. The handwritten notes are also harder to follow. #feedback
I think instead of the jokes here and there, you guys can throw in an example from the actual test. This would be far more beneficial to everyone spending time trying to understand the material without any sort of real hands-on application.
"Or if you're impatient, you could capture some dolphins, put them in a tank with some blooming algae and fish, then watch to see what happens. All while stroking Mr. Fat Cat and twirling your mustache, of course. If the dolphins die, then congratulations! You're an evil motherfucker. If the dolphins live, then you're just gonna have to find another way to kill dolphins."
#feedback I feel like it is unappealing to put curse words in a huge study platform and assume that most people will find it lighthearted and almost brighten up their studies, because for me it has the exact opposite effect and I just cringe at it as I find cursing so distasteful. I get the approach, it just feels inconsiderate and unprofessional to me as many opt out of using bad language morally or otherwise.
Subscribe to unlock everything that 7Sage has to offer.
Hold on there, stranger! You need a free account for that.
We love that you want to get going. Just create a free account below—it only takes a minute—and then you can continue!
Hold on there, stranger! You need a free account for that.
We love that you came here to read all the amazing posts from our 300,000+ members. They all have accounts too! Just create a free account below—it only takes a minute—and then you’re free to discuss anything!
Hold on there, stranger! You need a free account for that.
We love that you want to give us feedback! Just create a free account below—it only takes a minute—and then you’re free to vote on this!
Hold on there, you need to slow down.
We love that you want post in our discussion forum! Just come back in a bit to post again!
Subscribers can learn all the LSAT secrets.
Happens all the time: now that you've had a taste of the lessons, you just can't stop -- and you don't have to! Click the button.
46 comments
I'm struggling to follow this portion of the curriculum because of how far it strays from a rigorous discussion of causal inference. Generally, in my prior learning, prediction is distinct from causal inference (because prediction doesn't care whether you have identified a true cause or some other relationship, just whether it can predict the result), but I think when Ping says hypotheses make predictions, he means "hypotheses are testable". That's sensible, and foundational to an inductive approach (vs. the deductive approach in the formal logic section). It is strange for it to appear 10 lessons deep in this section, though.
I find the handwritten notes very hard to follow.
And I agree that LSAT style questions incorporated would be much more beneficial to absorb this information. We all took some form of science classes in school; we know what hypotheses are. What we don't know is how the LSAT use these to trick us!
Out of all the sections in Foundations, Logic of Causation is the most confusing. Understanding how this relates to the LSAT first would be more beneficial. I feel like I'm trying to understand abstract concepts with no clue where this is going. The handwritten notes are also harder to follow. #feedback
It is shocking to read comments referencing what these videos used to say. Thank you for removing the "colorful language."
I think instead of the jokes here and there, you guys can throw in an example from the actual test. This would be far more beneficial to everyone spending time trying to understand the material without any sort of real hands-on application.
I wish some of these video lessons would apply the information to LSAT questions. These are still very good lessons!!
good stuff
"Or if you're impatient, you could capture some dolphins, put them in a tank with some blooming algae and fish, then watch to see what happens. All while stroking Mr. Fat Cat and twirling your mustache, of course. If the dolphins die, then congratulations! You're an evil motherfucker. If the dolphins live, then you're just gonna have to find another way to kill dolphins."
Peak.
I am HERE for the COLORFUL language in the text!!!! Thank you!!!
These jokes keep me going. Thank you for the lols
Im liking the Dr Claw reference
Guess I am an evil motherfucker then lmao caught me so off guard
Did a dolphin hurt you?
This guy gets it
I busted out laughing and it made me more engaged
#feedback- Add more "cuss words". If more cuss words are added, then I will absorb material better.
For those of you getting tripped on the word, who the fuck cares? Build a bridge, get over it.
honestly feels like i'm learning these concepts from friends when y'all say things like "you're an evil motherfucker" LOL love it
In the scientific world, a hypothesis cannot be proven true but either supported or not supported by the evidence.
#feedback I feel like it is unappealing to put curse words in a huge study platform and assume that most people will find it lighthearted and almost brighten up their studies, because for me it has the exact opposite effect and I just cringe at it as I find cursing so distasteful. I get the approach, it just feels inconsiderate and unprofessional to me as many opt out of using bad language morally or otherwise.
This guy is funny af
who is writing these LOL
The LSAT writers are evil motherfuckers.
In all fairness, dolphins are evil themselves.
"Congratulations! You're an evil motherfucker!" LOL True, please keep these coming!
#feedback using the same 2 examples throughout these lessons has been very helpful in me understanding and retaining the information!
Lol