>>7772046 Here's an interesting one. A French study showed a correlation between regular but not excessive wine consumption and a longer life expectancy. The researchers suggested that it was due to the presence of antioxidants in wine.
Similarly, a British study showed a correlation between regular but not excessive whisky consumption and a longer life expectancy. However, whisky doesn't contain any significant amounts of antioxidants.
It was later established that regular but not excessive consumption of expensive alcohols like wine or whisky is something higher classes of society do, and that these classes had better living standards (food quality, hygiene, access to health, conditions of work, etc.) and in consequence, had a longer life expectancy.
>>7773311 If this was the case then the number of shark attacks would be even higher than it is during summer. Summer => More people at the beach => higher probability of a shark being in contact with a human => higher probability of a shark attacking a human. Summer => more people eating ice cream => people more attractive to sharks (according to your hypothesis) => even higher probability of a shark attacking a human
>>7773320 I honestly believe that the burden of proof lies on both sides all the time.
>>7772504 >>7772046 How do you distinguish between correlation that appears purely coincidental (like that between of Age of Miss America and steam murders), and stuff like OP pic which is actually explainable by a chain of causal links?
>Correlation is not causation! This is true. However, notice that correlation does IMPLY causation (in the mathematical sense of the word "imply").
In the sharks-and-ice-cream example, the fact that the two variables are correlated does indeed imply a causal link -- that is to say, it implies that the two events are caused by the same underlying phenomenon (summer).
Correlation implies causation, in full generality. Silly appears to fallacies notwithstanding.
>>7773320 >Given that you are assuming a causation exists, the burden of proof here lies with you, therefore I implore you to prove yourself correct, not ask us to prove you wrong. no, the burden of the proof lies with the guy claiming a statement. if you claim ''there is no causation, only correlation'' you must prove this.
>>7772504 These correlations are not statistically significant because they are derived from trawling vast numbers of statistics looking for a spurious correlation. If you correct for this fact, you can confirm that the results are not statistically significant in context.
>>7773394 >>7773416 You just don't understand what "correlation implies causation" means. Correlation implies causation means that if A and B are correlated then either A => B or B => A. This is false, so correlation does not imply causation, end of line.
Suppose someone sees through the boorish naivete of this famous concept of "free will" and manages to get it out of his mind; I would then ask him to carry his "enlightenment" a step further and to rid his mind of the reversal of this misconceived concept of "free will": I mean the "un-free will," which is basically an abuse of cause and effect. We should not erroneously objectify "cause" and "effect" like the natural scientists do (and whoever else thinks naturalistically these days) in accordance with the dominant mechanistic stupidity which would have the cause push and shove until it "effects" something; we should use "cause" and "effect" only as pure concepts, which is to say as conventional functions for the purpose of description and communication, not explanation. In the "in-itself" there is nothing like "causal association," "necessity," or "psychological un-freedom."
Although not coterminous, it is also not true that correlation does not imply causation, where "imply" is used in its natural language sense of "suggest" (as opposed to its strict logical connective sense), as statisticians and trained undergradautes frequently and wrongfully characterize the matter.
Quite the opposite, correlation DOES imply causation in the natural-language sense, that when there is an obvious pattern or comparison between two phenomena that one wishes to understand in greater detail, what becomes necessary to human cognition is to tell some sort of story which fits the data, or otherwise find new information which fills the story in. Summer explains the events of Jaws; other less obvious or uknown factors may be at play. But the point is that if understanding is the goal, some deeper inquiry must be made, one way or another. If it were really true that correlation does not imply causation, then in one sense we would never seek to explain or understand patterns to begin with.
Anyone who has ever managed a business in any capacity knows perfectly well that when something is going wrong, or some undesirable pattern emerges, it is reasonable (and frequently, though not always correct) to make an initial assumption that x causes y. Usually, but of course not always, this is vindicated.
The better and more intellectually honest rephrase, in natural English, is: "Correlation does not NECESSITATE causation, but when you see a pattern... check it out."
>>7780011 >what becomes necessary to human cognition is to tell some sort of story which fits the data, or otherwise find new information which fills the story in. necessity is the explicit confession of your inability to think otherwise. when you say that a thing is necessary, it is you who expresses your wish to see it that way, but then turn the thing into and object in order to tell people that it is not not your personal choice to characterise the thing as you do, so that people are ''forced'' to accept your view. the day you understand that nothing is a necessity in the empirical world is the day you stop being an animal.
>>7773395 Honestly, shark attacks being related to ice cream is not that far-fetched. Ice cream has a tendency to make people fatter and thus more attractive to sharks, thus a causal link using inductive reasoning has been established. No need to prove anything with inductive reasoning.
Ice cream is probably the only reason sharks kill anyone now that I think about it.
Reading has a high correlation to higher grades and fMRI experiments have shown conclusively that reading not only activates the part of the brain that is concerned with language processing but areas around it. The same experiments have also shown that the areas around the language area remaining active for hours, even days after reading.
So basically, reading activates big parts of the brain and it is reasonable to assume this leads to better grades over time. Also, avid readers are generally speaking avid readers because they are more interested in a wider range of subjects, and are more curious. So basically
>>7772046 in most professional sports, most of the athletes are born early in the year ->being born in january-march means you'll be more athletically gifted
that's obviously false, it happens because the youth levels are arranged in yearly classes, so those born earlier are more developed than those born late and therefore have an advantage. over the years it accumulates, they receive more coach attention and are generally regarded as the star players
All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective parties. Images uploaded are the responsibility of the Poster. Comments are owned by the Poster.
This is a 4chan archive - all of the shown content originated from that site. This means that 4Archive shows their content, archived. If you need information for a Poster - contact them.
If a post contains personal/copyrighted/illegal content, then use the post's [Report] link! If a post is not removed within 24h contact me at email@example.com with the post's information.