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.

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

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.)