I’m saying it may only appear some of the time. It may be drowned out by other interactions at some point in time. The causal link would still be there.
ISK destruction has, but I already explained why ISK destruction is the wrong metric. Go back and read.
Here you are again misunderstanding things with a dishonnest intent, as I already explained you why you were wrong. Wardecs data helped them to search for data, which they got from nerfing the wardecs. Nerfing the wardec is an actionable variable that can be used to make causations.
You are again ranting like a little child who can’t accept to be slapped his hands, and making dishonest parrallels. You were wrong, deal with it.
It’s not correlation. Carbon Dioxyde (or other gases) DOES increase the temperature, that’s exactly the job of scientists to prove it.
Correct, I meant the affirmation of your hypothesis. Using your hypothesis is wrong though .
That’s the first step. Then you need to design protocols to prove that hypothesis. Otherwise you remain stuck in the hypothesis and can’t say anything.
Also I wrote :
Sure, but I’m more using it to ask people to pick holes in my hypothesis than using it seriously to push some kind of agenda. I was fine with the state of the game a few years ago, I’m fine with the game now. I just do not agree that strangling players income results in a more exciting game. From a personal perspective, it means I just have to spend more time generating ISK to fly the ships I want to fly.
Well, like I said, you build up a case. You can’t really prove anything outside of mathematics with 100% certainty. Everything we know is statistically ‘proven’ with a sigma rating.
I agree, a model is only as good as the assumptions made. This is why you must interrogate your assumptions and find out if they make sense.
No.
Science is the production of knowledge through reproducible experiments.
Now I agree that the interpretation of the results may be wrong.
Maybe there is no force that makes the apple fall, and it’s actually us who are accelerating upward. 
So yes you can actually prove causation, but only with actionable variables and correct protocols. And that’s the very hard part. Making correlations is easy and child play. Proving causations is a job. That’s why CCP presentation on the topic were interesting, because CCP actually hired someone who knew what he was talking about.
This is exactly what I’m saying. Sigma rating is a measure of how likely your hypothesis is to be correct. Independent studies add to the knowledge base and experimental data base. As more data and more knowledge is collected, the sigma rating increases. The point at which you consider something to be true depends on the sigma rating you choose. In physics, a 5 sigma rating is the standard by which discoveries are accepted as such, in other fields, a 2 sigma rating is considered sufficient for practical purposes. There is no single accepted number for proof.
You can prove causation because it’s usually based on a mathematical principle when boiled down to the fundamentals. But for questions where mathematics doesn’t help, like does god exist, or where the mathematics becomes too complex, like what is the weather going to be like in a month - the answers to these questions are unprovable to us, and so we must rely on building up evidence to accept them as fact or fiction and choose what we accept as sufficient evidence.
So you’re just making the assumption that you’re hypothesis is always right and anytime it’s not it’s ‘just cause’.
That may be the strongest confirmation bias I have ever seen.
Not only isk destruction but also number of ships destroyed. Neither are following the trend of production and isk generated.
You have it backwards.
CCP nerfed wardecs because of a correlation. You do actually know this to be the case.
They didn’t then come out and say ‘nerfing wardecs improved retention’ did they?
OR
Nerfing production was an actionable moment and there was no corresponding drop in destruction or number of ships destroyed.
It is correlation though. That’s why Al Gore goes round with the presentation he does, one slide in particular.
The world didn’t decide to deliberately dump more CO2 into the atmosphere and measure the results. They simply watched the correlation between two variables that were already in motion.
Finally.
And you could have said that here:
Literally said I’m not a few posts ago.
Ships destroyed only and I already showed evidence that it was following the trend, because ship destruction has been decreasing since production decreased, and was stable when production was stable.
No, I see how you keep saying that I’m saying stuff I haven’t said and I keep having to reexplain the exact same point to you over and over again. I don’t know why I am doing this, I should just ignore you, so I will.
You can just accept you don’t have an adequate answer for those questions. Wisdom is the knowledge of your limits.
What ? When I drop an apple, it falls. That’s a causation.
If I start smoking, my life expectancy will be divided by 2. Another causation (this one may not be true ^^ ).
No, you.
You already asked this question and were not able to understand my answer, because you are blinded by your hidden agenda.
They don’t need to. They have no duty to give their data to you. Especially since you are not able to understand them.
There was MORE than correlation. That’s the definition of science, again : go from correlations to actual causations.
No they did not ONLY do that. Correlations were the first step.
I already did when I said my hypothesis was inconclusive.
That’s an observation. Not a causation.
This should also say decrease, and again, that would be ‘proven’ using statistical evidence.
This is false. We have already covered that NPCS can provide equal or superior risk to players.
Nope, Actually its the day eve will start to regrow itself. Mark my words.
Production is nerfed in 2019…so why is the number of ships destroyed higher in 2020 than it is 2018 and 2019?
They are quotes.
Then they didn’t need to talk about the correlation with the csm before hand either.
Again, wardecs. CCP took the causation and looked for correlation, found something that confirmed their feelings and then acted.
Because you are reading the graph like a climate change denier.
This is unlikely due to the fact that the entire system is in base code which ccp does not want to touch
If i was then surely I’d also deny climate change…
There are more ways than 1 to be wrong.
If this is true, I am very happy ccp at last woke up to reality and going forward would be definitely open to talking about ways high sec should have legalized pvp (likely i’d advocate through the war system (mutual war only in high sec) and/or the faction war system).
I know a lot of the ganker types will not like this, but them being in low sec really is best for the game and giving the various types of game play (alliance pvp, pirating, care bearing, and faction war) a much more uniquely applied “do this in that space”).
that being said, i am totally open to talking about ways high sec should be dangerous for players that live there.
Nope. You are wrong again and blinded by your personal agenda.
No. That is proven by experiment, not by statistical evidences. That’s actually what the tobacco industry used and they were right to do so, even though they had ill intentions.
This thread is guuuud
When you perform an experiment, you collect data, which must be analysed with statistical methods. Reproducibility is not proof on it’s own. How do you know you will get the same result next tiem you run the experiment? The answer is that you must analyse the situation and understand WHY the experiment is reproducible, which requires you to make a hypothesis. Hypotheses require data to validate them, and validation is the statistical threshold at which you are willing to say you accept the hypothesis as true…
The tobacco industry used data to show there was no evidence tobacco was harmful to health. However, the wrong conclusion was drawn because of insufficient data. I don’t understand what you mean when you say this wasn’t shown with statistical evidence.