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: Anders_H 23 December 2015 12:41:05AM *  2 points [-]

(1) Observational studies are almost always attempts to determine causation. Sometimes the investigators try to pretend that they aren't, but they aren't fooling anyone, least of all the general public. I know they are attempting to determine causation because nobody would be interested in the results of the study unless they were interested in causation. Moreover, I know they are attempting to determine causation because they do things like "control for confounding". This procedure is undefined unless the goal is to estimate a causal effect

(2) What do you mean by the sentence "the study was causative"? Of course nobody is suggesting that the study itself had an effect on the dependent variable?

(3) 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. The correlation is real, even if it is due to confounding. It just doesn't represent a causal effect

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.)