NancyLebovitz comments on Open thread, 23-29 June 2014 - Less Wrong

3 Post author: David_Gerard 23 June 2014 07:21AM

You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.

Comments (190)

You are viewing a single comment's thread. Show more comments above.

Comment author: NancyLebovitz 24 June 2014 02:23:37AM 3 points [-]

After all, you can more or less divvy up the possibilities as:

A causes B B causes A both A and B are caused by C

There are at least two more possibilities: A and B are unrelated, but happen to be in sync for a while, and the data was collected wrong in some way.

Comment author: gwern 24 June 2014 02:31:48AM 4 points [-]

I'm choosing to ignore that possibility to clarify the exposition of what I think is going on. Problems like that are what I'm referring to when I preface:

And we can't explain all of this away as the result of illusory correlations being throw up by the standard statistical problems with findings such as small n/sampling error, selection bias, publication bias, etc.

Even if we had enormous clean datasets showing correlations to whatever level of statistical-significance you please, you still can't spin the straw of correlation into the gold of causation, and the question remains why.

Comment author: Warrigal3 29 June 2014 06:42:08PM *  0 points [-]

You could say that "A and B happen to be in sync for a while" is possibility 3, where C is the passage of time. (Unless by "happen to be in sync for a while" you mean that they appear to be correlated because of a fluke.)