Old Man Stream

Little update here. I have officially "launched" the website now, meaning I sent emails to my friends and told them I had a website. Perhaps you are one of them peeps! I did however, forget to mention in my "Gigs" section, that Soulstream did not play Bar None last night and I had a bunch of people calling and asking about getting on the guest list and seeing the band. So, sorry to all who went down expecting the band.

The club has been doing special events once every couple months on OUR nights, which is kinda nice to have the night off, but it occurs to me how inconsistancy can be a bad thing. I think people have come to expect that we'll be there every week, which we usually are....for 9 years. The was some rumour that Soulstream and the new owners were having a little tiff at one point and there was mention of us quitting/getting fired; it might be easy to think we were no longer there should someone come down, not see us there, and with those rumours floating, put two and two together on their own....

The new ownership celebrated their first anniversary this week and with the exception of a bumpy start, we've all been getting along. Hell, Jeff Donnelly himself was dancing right up front the other night. I think they now understand that we're all about being fair. Fair to them and of course, fair to us. We aren't out to screw anybody, nor are we out to get screwed.

Mondays and Tuesday at Bar None are special. Anyone who's been there knows it. It IS a money making night. If the club is losing money on these nights, it ain't cause the party isn't happening.

We don't have and maybe we'll never have the same relationship that we had with the old owners/managers (Ryan, although a conservative with no concept of PA, is a great guy and good friend), but things are good at the old Bar None and the mighty Stream still flows.

Cause and Effect

Thinking about cause and effect especially in these times of the Canucks, war, and the thousands of other problems that plague us. Why did the Canucks not make the play-offs? Who's to blame for the Hurricane Katrina screw up? Why do I have a cold? Why are boys shooting up their schools? Why are girls sexualizing themselves at such an early age? Why is George Bush doing what he is doing? Why did David Emerson cross the floor? Why does my calf hurt after a run? Why did the government of Alberta send out prosperity cheques?

These are all great questions that involve a process known as cause and effect. In other words here's the effect, now what are the causes? It's very easy to point to causes; fun in fact! But beware, a cause could literally be anything that precedes the effect eg. The TV picture is fuzzy. I go and hit the TV. It comes back to normal. Therefore, hitting my TV fixes it, right???? Wrong!!!! I wore my lucky hat and the Flames won. Therefore, wearing my lucky hat makes the Flames win, right??? Wrong!!! I took echinacea tea yesterday and I'm not sick today. Therefore, echinacea tea prevents sickness, right??? Wrong!!!

This is known in the philosophical community as a Post Hoc fallacy, one of the 10 common fallacies that people are prone to.


"A Post Hoc is a fallacy with the following form:

A occurs before B.
Therefore A is the cause of B.

The Post Hoc fallacy derives its name from the Latin phrase "Post hoc, ergo propter hoc." This has been traditionally interpreted as "After this, therefore because of this." This fallacy is committed when it is concluded that one event causes another simply because the proposed cause occurred before the proposed effect. More formally, the fallacy involves concluding that A causes or caused B because A occurs before B and there is not sufficient evidence to actually warrant such a claim.

It is evident in many cases that the mere fact that A occurs before B in no way indicates a causal relationship. For example, suppose Jill, who is in London, sneezed at the exact same time an earthquake started in California. It would clearly be irrational to arrest Jill for starting a natural disaster, since there is no reason to suspect any causal connection between the two events. While such cases are quite obvious, the Post Hoc fallacy is fairly common because there are cases in which there might be some connection between the events. For example, a person who has her computer crash after she installs a new piece of software would probably suspect that the software was to blame. If she simply concluded that the software caused the crash because it was installed before the crash she would be committing the Post Hoc fallacy. In such cases the fallacy would be committed because the evidence provided fails to justify acceptance of the causal claim. It is even theoretically possible for the fallacy to be committed when A really does cause B, provided that the "evidence" given consists only of the claim that A occured before B. The key to the Post Hoc fallacy is not that there is no causal connection between A and B. It is that adequate evidence has not been provided for a claim that A causes B. Thus, Post Hoc resembles a Hasty Generalization in that it involves making a leap to an unwarranted conclusion. In the case of the Post Hoc fallacy, that leap is to a causal claim instead of a general proposition.

Not surprisingly, many superstitions are probably based on Post Hoc reasoning. For example, suppose a person buys a good luck charm, does well on his exam, and then concludes that the good luck charm caused him to do well. This person would have fallen victim to the Post Hoc fallacy. This is not to say that all "superstitions" have no basis at all. For example, some "folk cures" have actually been found to work.

Post Hoc fallacies are typically committed because people are simply not careful enough when they reason. Leaping to a causal conclusion is always easier and faster than actually investigating the phenomenon. However, such leaps tend to land far from the truth of the matter. Because Post Hoc fallacies are committed by drawing an unjustified causal conclusion, the key to avoiding them is careful investigation. While it is true that causes proceed effects (outside of Star Trek, anyways), it is not true that precedence makes something a cause of something else. Because of this, a causal investigation should begin with finding what occurs before the effect in question, but it should not end there."


Some people are more guilty than others for this. I really hate it when people offer advice for colds and sickness (you know those people). Health advice is really the biggest of all post hoc fallacies. There are so many "X-factors" at work in your body, it's incredibly difficult (and arrogant frankly) to say, "Do X and you'll get Y" or "you're Y because of X." Chances are you're Y not just because of X but because of ABCDEFGHIJKLMNOPQRSTUVW and X. Controversial subjects like gun control, 2nd hand smoke, global warming, video game violence, Christina Aguliera music videos, and foreign policy are all victims of post hoc. Post hoc is everywhere in our lives from the Canucks to Iraq to why I break strings on my guitar.

So next time we start speculating on Canuck cause and effect. Think about it. It's totally fun to do and important to do if you want to figure out what the hell happened, but don't accept your theories as the end all. One should try to figure out causes of the problems in our world but understand that causes are generally more complexed than we would like.