>"Well, your arguments seem equally non-sequiter to me." Fair enough. >"I spend a lot of time in the world of correlations, in biology." I left that field. O

>"Well, your arguments seem equally non-sequiter to me." Fair enough. >"I spend a lot of time in the world of correlations, in biology." I left that field. One reason was because I realized so much of my time was wasted after I attempted to attach numbers to things like "# of receptors required to fit the narrative". Sure "A causes B", but it must be for some reason totally different from what is usually proposed (and could probably be considered a boring experimental artifact). I just don't care if "A causes B". I want to know for "f(A) ~ B", what is f? >"It's much better to get a causation: a knob that when you turn it you get a response, rather than no response." Reminds me of this paper: "Biologists summarize their results with the help of all-too-well recognizable diagrams, in which a favorite protein is placed in the middle and connected to everything else with two-way arrows. Even if a diagram makes overall sense (Fig. 3a), it is usually useless for a quantitative analysis, which limits its predictive or investigative value to a very narrow range. The language used by biologists for verbal communications is not better and is not unlike that used by stock market analysts. Both are vague (e.g., “a balance between pro- and anti-apoptotic bcl-2 proteins appears to control the cell viability, and seems to correlate in long-term with the ability to form tumors”) and avoid clear predictions." https://bml.bioe.uic.edu/BML/Stuff/Stuff_files/biologist%20fix%20radio.pdf https://bml.bioe.uic.edu/BML/Stuff/Stuff_files/biologist%20f...