I didn’t hear that. You seem confused.
1 Like
well open your ears. I can even write it down for you :
“Correlation is not causation. We can’t say that going to lowsec or getting killed is gonna get you to stick to the game. We just see that those who stick to the game, they get killed”.
BTW that should be in your basic lessons when doing a PhD.
Also statistical analyzes skills and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning–Kruger_effect
1 Like
Correlation does not necessarily imply casuation, but it also does not disprove causation.
I can see your problem here, is that you are getting your understanding of the scientific method from a youtube video produced by CCP, instead of learning science at, say, a university. Most scientific research involves the establishment of correlation. Most scientific evidence is in the form of correlated data. You are falling into the fallacy of concluding that correlation should be dismissed.
I refer you to Novella (2009): Evidence in Medicine: Correlation and Causation | Science-Based Medicine
Pseudoscientific proponents, on the other hand, praise science, they just do it wrong…
Much of scientific evidence is based upon a correlation of variables – they tend to occur together. Scientists are careful to point out that correlation does not necessarily mean causation… However, sometimes people commit the opposite fallacy – dismissing correlation entirely, as if it does not imply causation. This would dismiss a large swath of important scientific evidence…
For example, the tobacco industry abused this fallacy to argue that simply because smoking correlates with lung cancer that does not mean that smoking causes lung cancer. The simple correlation is not enough to arrive at a conclusion of causation, but multiple correlations all triangulating on the conclusion that smoking causes lung cancer, combined with biological plausibility, does.
In other words, correlation (despite the words of your CCP science advisor) does imply causation, and identifying correlation is a critical first step in concluding that there is indeed causation. A reasonable person can look at the data and make reasonable assumptions. If you feel the conclusion is erroneous, it is up to you to provide some evidence to show that this correlation is not due to causation.
In conclusion, correlation is an extremely valuable type of scientific evidence
3 Likes
Strawman here. I did not affirm anything as “correlation does disprove causation”. Especially this affirmation would be self-contradictory, because then the correlation between correlations and causations would mean there is no causation, and thus no disproof of causation based on the correlation.
I never claimed such a thing. I claim that a correlation can’t be used an an evidence of a causation.
Wrong.
It does not. That’s literally what you learn in basic lessons of science when doing a PhD.
That’s also what is literally written in your quote “correlation does not necessarily mean causation”.
Your quotes contradict yourself.
1 Like
Well, that’s ■■■■■■■■. It certainly can. Your pseudoscience is not impressing me.
2 Likes
Yet your quote says exactly the opposite.
Also that’s what you learn when doing a PhD.
Basically, the whole scientific world, CCP, and you quotes all affirm : you are wrong.
Your claim that “correlation implies causation” are just logically false, stupid, and a proof you have no education in scientific topics.
1 Like
Let’s look at Downey (2014): Probably Overthinking It: Correlation is evidence of causation
In class last week, I was talking about correlation and linear regression, and I made the outrageous claim that correlation is evidence of causation… The point I was trying to make (and will elaborate here) is that the usual mantra, “Correlation does not imply causation,” is true only in a trivial sense, so we need to think about it more carefully.
Or how about Engber (2012): Correlation does not imply causation: How the Internet fell in love with a stats-class cliché.
The Internet Blowhard’s Favorite Phrase
Why do people love to say that correlation does not imply causation? How did a stats-class admonition become so misused and so widespread? What made this simple caveat—a warning not to fall too hard for correlation coefficients—into a coup de grace for second-rate debates?
You, Anderson Geten, are guilty of pseudoscience, and you are what Engber would describe as an “internet blowhard”. When you say that correlation does not imply causation, what you are doing is the intellectual equivalent of someone saying evolution is “only” a thesis.
2 Likes
Did not look at your link.
You are claiming that logic and science are wrong.
Your OWN quotes say the exact opposite of what you claim.
They say you are wrong.
Of course, you are willfully ignorant. You are a pseudoscientist who does not want to engage with actual science. For you, science is an internet forum debate, nothing more.
Apparently I need to repeat Novella (2002), since your reading comprehension is a little low:
correlation is an extremely valuable type of scientific evidence
So much for your preceding claim:
THE CODE WINS AGAIN! \o/
PRAISE JAMES, DIRECTOR OF THE CALDARI SCIENCE INSTITUTE!
2 Likes
You can repeat as much as you want.
Your claim and your quote as in contradiction.
Therefore, you are wrong, again.
Read it, out loud.
1 Like
read your own quote, loud : correlation does not imply causation.
You are wrong.
Read the actual words. Carefully read them and enunciate each syllable.
1 Like
read the actual words :
necessarily
What’s that word mean? Why is it there?
2 Likes
holy fck you don’t even know what this word means.
Maybe alpha’s should only get one free clone in low sec, then next time they permanently die, they can reset with one month as omega.
Hun, I don’t think you know what it means. You are an ignorant little child.
2 Likes
A little child has memorized a phrase, and thinks it will help him avoid responsibility in life.
2 Likes
learn to read
Just for you education : “necessarly mean” <=> “imply” in the context.