4 ms·
It seems like these kinds of "studies" are only made to write headlines and to write books (notice how half of the people quoted in the article have some surpri
by ericdykstra 11y ago
It seems like these kinds of "studies" are only made to write headlines and to write books (notice how half of the people quoted in the article have some surprising new "facts" that they reveal in a book they wrote?).
The only paradox is why researchers still latch onto a calculation of health based on just height and weight that was concocted in over 150 years ago. What other field would rely on such a primitive, outdated formula and use it as the base of research?
- jdkuepper 11y agoAnother paradox is why the media always seems to portray meta studies (correlation) as fact (causation). This just in: Margarine Causes Divorce in Maine [1] 1. http://tylervigen.com/spurious-correlations http://tylervigen.com/spurious-correlations (99.3% correlation between Maine's divorce rate and margarine consumption)
- dragonwriter 11y ago> Another paradox is why the media always seems to portray meta studies (correlation) as fact (causation). correlation vs. causation is a completely different axis of differentiation from meta-study vs. (direct) study, which is a completely different axis of variation from (something that isn't fact) to fact. So, you've conflated at least three different distinctions there.