5 ms·

In reference to some of the comments below me. This article seems eerily similar to this http://slatestarcodex.com/2015/09/16/cardiologists-and-chinese-robbers

by MollyR 11y ago

In reference to some of the comments below me. This article seems eerily similar to this http://slatestarcodex.com/2015/09/16/cardiologists-and-chinese-robbers/ http://slatestarcodex.com/2015/09/16/cardiologists-and-chine... I stand by my early comment as well. As I don't think over representation of engineers in terrorist groups suggests causation. It can easy be attributed to another hidden variable such as the same culture that creates more engineers also creates more terrorist candidates(not that I think it does).

richmarr 11y ago
> ... It can easy be attributed to another hidden variable such as the same culture that creates more engineers also creates more terrorist candidates (not that I think it does). There are plenty of problems in science, but I'm reasonably confident that a researcher at Oxford, and his co-author, an associate professor, probably understand the relationship between correlation and causation. From the abstract of their paper in the European Journal of Sociology they hypothesised and then tested multiple hypotheses before arguing for a likely cause.
- MollyR 11y ago
  I am not a fan of an appeal to authority, because I've seen people do worse in biomedical research. http://www.bbc.com/news/health-30534674 http://www.bbc.com/news/health-30534674 but I haven't read the original paper either. So here is a link to the abstract for curious people. http://journals.cambridge.org/action/displayAbstract?fromPage=online&aid=6607832 http://journals.cambridge.org/action/displayAbstract?fromPag... I can't actually find the full article. So I'm going to refrain from commenting on it.
  - richmarr 11y ago
    According to abstract of their paper, these two researchers hypothesised and then tested several possible explanations of the observed correlation. That fact alone disproves your claim that they mistook correlation for causation. The article also discusses a third factor.
    - MollyR 11y ago
      If you get me the actual paper, I might change my mind. Without more information from the actual whole paper, I'm not going to update my reasoning. I've seen it numerous times in psychology and sociological papers. I've even seen biologists mistake correlation and causation in their own experiment. As being part of the scientific community, I was forced to read tons and tons of retraction papers by my PI (principal investigator).So again I'm holding out until I get the actual paper, and I standby my skepticism.
      - richmarr 11y ago
        Sorry, unless I'm missing something your reasoning is faulty. You don't need to read the paper to see that their method involved looking and testing hidden variables, disproving your assertion that they mistook correlation for causation. You may disagree with their conclusion, but their method disproves your accusation.
        MollyR 11y ago
        Typically papers have a section called "Materials and Methods". http://www.nature.com/scitable/topicpage/scientific-papers-13815490 http://www.nature.com/scitable/topicpage/scientific-papers-1... Not having seen this part of their paper. I can't really conclude anything, but stay skeptical based on outside prior information.
        richmarr 11y ago
        Note how you completely avoided addressing my point. >...stay skeptical... Well, no, skepticism is withholding judgement pending evidence. You judged them and found them guilty without waiting for evidence. That's cynicism.
        MollyR 11y ago
        Actually I asked for the paper with the evidence. Still don't have it. I also gave prior evidence of academic failures, one of many that inform my thoughts on the matter. It seems you are trying to puts words in my mouth,and trying to use an appeal to authority, ignoring my point about bad academic research which informs my skepticism, and avoiding the actual papers methods and materials issue. Finally I'm not sure what you mean by the cynicism comment but a quick google search showed cynicism: inclination to believe that people are motivated purely by self-interest; skepticism.

by MollyR 11y ago

richmarr 11y ago

> ... It can easy be attributed to another hidden variable such as the same culture that creates more engineers also creates more terrorist candidates (not that I think it does). There are plenty of problems in science, but I'm reasonably confident that a researcher at Oxford, and his co-author, an associate professor, probably understand the relationship between correlation and causation. From the abstract of their paper in the European Journal of Sociology they hypothesised and then tested multiple hypotheses before arguing for a likely cause.

MollyR 11y ago
I am not a fan of an appeal to authority, because I've seen people do worse in biomedical research. http://www.bbc.com/news/health-30534674 http://www.bbc.com/news/health-30534674 but I haven't read the original paper either. So here is a link to the abstract for curious people. http://journals.cambridge.org/action/displayAbstract?fromPage=online&aid=6607832 http://journals.cambridge.org/action/displayAbstract?fromPag... I can't actually find the full article. So I'm going to refrain from commenting on it.
- richmarr 11y ago
  According to abstract of their paper, these two researchers hypothesised and then tested several possible explanations of the observed correlation. That fact alone disproves your claim that they mistook correlation for causation. The article also discusses a third factor.
  - MollyR 11y ago
    If you get me the actual paper, I might change my mind. Without more information from the actual whole paper, I'm not going to update my reasoning. I've seen it numerous times in psychology and sociological papers. I've even seen biologists mistake correlation and causation in their own experiment. As being part of the scientific community, I was forced to read tons and tons of retraction papers by my PI (principal investigator).So again I'm holding out until I get the actual paper, and I standby my skepticism.
    - richmarr 11y ago
      Sorry, unless I'm missing something your reasoning is faulty. You don't need to read the paper to see that their method involved looking and testing hidden variables, disproving your assertion that they mistook correlation for causation. You may disagree with their conclusion, but their method disproves your accusation.
      - MollyR 11y ago
        Typically papers have a section called "Materials and Methods". http://www.nature.com/scitable/topicpage/scientific-papers-13815490 http://www.nature.com/scitable/topicpage/scientific-papers-1... Not having seen this part of their paper. I can't really conclude anything, but stay skeptical based on outside prior information.
        richmarr 11y ago
        Note how you completely avoided addressing my point. >...stay skeptical... Well, no, skepticism is withholding judgement pending evidence. You judged them and found them guilty without waiting for evidence. That's cynicism.
        MollyR 11y ago
        Actually I asked for the paper with the evidence. Still don't have it. I also gave prior evidence of academic failures, one of many that inform my thoughts on the matter. It seems you are trying to puts words in my mouth,and trying to use an appeal to authority, ignoring my point about bad academic research which informs my skepticism, and avoiding the actual papers methods and materials issue. Finally I'm not sure what you mean by the cynicism comment but a quick google search showed cynicism: inclination to believe that people are motivated purely by self-interest; skepticism.