Probability rules assume events are independent of each other

Evidence

What I didn’t mention is that these rules of probability assume that the events in question are independent of one another, meaning that the one event (vaccinating people) doesn’t impact on the other (generating income). — Sander van der Linden, Foolproof, 193

Categorization

• DEFINE: Clarifies the independence assumption underlying conjunction probability math.
• XREF: connects to: Affirming the consequent fails because multiple independent conditions can produce it — Ruggero J. Aldisert, Agatha D. Aldisert, Logic for Lawyers- A Guide to Clear…, 936; A single observed sequence may be arbitrary coincidence — Ruggero J. Aldisert, Agatha D. Aldisert, Logic for Lawyers- A Guide to Clear…, 1129; Superposition lets separate experiments be combined to predict simultaneous ones — Eric J. Heller, Why You Hear What You Hear- An…, 838 (+4 more)

Broader Connections

• Rare events resist prediction because their causes interact uniquely #qualifies (0.82)
• A single observed sequence may be arbitrary coincidence #qualifies (0.80) — Ruggero J. Aldisert, Agatha D. Aldisert, Logic for Lawyers- A Guide to Clear…, 1129
• Superposition lets separate experiments be combined to predict simultaneous ones #qualifies (0.80) — Eric J. Heller, Why You Hear What You Hear- An…, 838
• Affirming the consequent fails because multiple independent conditions can produce it #qualifies (0.78) — Ruggero J. Aldisert, Agatha D. Aldisert, Logic for Lawyers- A Guide to Clear…, 936
• Intuitive representativeness heuristics systematically override logical probability reasoning #complicates (0.78)
• Legal reasoning yields probability rather than absolute mathematical truths #contradicts (0.75) — Ruggero J. Aldisert, Agatha D. Aldisert, Logic for Lawyers- A Guide to Clear…, 242
• Risk-control models based on mild randomness can generate the wild randomness they deny #qualifies (0.75) — Donald MacKenzie, An Engine, Not a Camera, 1168