You're looking at Less Wrong's discussion board. This includes all posts, including those that haven't been promoted to the front page yet. For more information, see About Less Wrong.

Dr_Manhattan comments on Taking "correlation does not imply causation" back from the internet - Less Wrong Discussion

41 Post author: sixes_and_sevens 03 October 2012 12:18PM

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

Article Navigation

Comments (70)

Comments (70)

You are viewing a single comment's thread.

Comment author: Dr_Manhattan 03 October 2012 01:37:32PM 1 point [-]

This might me correlated http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/science/2012/10/correlation_does_not_imply_causation_how_the_internet_fell_in_love_with_a_stats_class_clich_.single.html

Comment author: IlyaShpitser 03 October 2012 03:05:14PM *  5 points [-]

I like how this guy complains about "internet blowhards" abusing this phrase, but then gets basic reporting of correlation in scientific papers wrong (by reporting causation in articles he wrote about those papers). There was a comment on that slate article calling him out on this.

Comment author: sixes_and_sevens 03 October 2012 01:44:17PM 2 points [-]

Since it was the response to a quote from this article that gave me the idea, I'm going to infer that it's causal.

Powered by Reddit Powered by Reddit