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.

Lumifer comments on Open thread, Dec. 21 - Dec. 27, 2015 - Less Wrong Discussion

2 Post author: MrMind 21 December 2015 07:56AM

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

Comments (230)

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

Comment author: Lumifer 23 December 2015 04:40:18PM *  2 points [-]

You are assuming a couple of things which are almost always true in your (medical) field, but are not necessarily true in general. For example,

Observational studies are almost always attempts to determine causation

Nope. Another very common reason is to create a predictive model without caring about actual causation. If you can't do interventions but would like to forecast the future, that's all you need.

Assuming that the statistics were done correctly and that the investigators have accounted for sampling variability, the relationship between the independent and dependent variable definitely exists.

That further assumes your underlying process is stable and is not subject to drift, regime changes, etc. Sometimes you can make that assumption, sometimes you cannot.

Comment author: Vaniver 23 December 2015 08:45:34PM *  1 point [-]

Another very common reason is to create a predictive model without caring about actual causation. If you can't do interventions but would like to forecast the future, that's all you need.

You'd also like a guarantee that others can't do interventions, or else your measure could be gamed. (But if there's an actual causal relationship, then 'gaming' isn't really possible.)