3 ms·
Have you read the study, which is published in a peer-reviewed journal, before making this statement? If not, your comment doesn't add anything useful to the di
by pg314 10y ago
Have you read the study, which is published in a peer-reviewed journal, before making this statement? If not, your comment doesn't add anything useful to the discussion.
- knodi123 10y agoYes, my comment made a statement that added to the conversation. Maybe you missed it? I'll expand for you. I have studied statistics, and I understand that correlation does not imply causation. However, if you're going to allege that a professional scientific statistician failed to even consider the most trivial and obvious of non-causative correlations, then you're being insulting. And it's fine to insult scientists. They're not special snowflakes. Do it, if they have a track record of lies, or deceit, or carelessness, or stupidity. But be aware when you're doing it, and why. Don't just blithely say "Hey guys, have we considered the possibility that these scientists are either drooling idiots or evil liars?" That's uncharitable to an extreme. And yes, I've read it. They are not, as OP suggested, drooling idiots or evil liars.
- pg314 10y agoI misunderstood your comment as agreeing with jey's comment and I concur with your explanation here. My apologies and thank you for expanding.