4 ms·

This is pseudo-science. Please refrain from upvoting. You cannot prove (or imply) causation via observation. The only method we know to find causation is by se

This is pseudo-science. Please refrain from upvoting. You cannot prove (or imply) causation via observation. The only method we know to find causation is by setting up an experiment. This study however merely measures variables in a pre-existing context, without injecting independent variables. The only valid result you may extract from this is a correlation, never causation. Please edit the title to reflect correlation or (IMO preferred) delete the submission, because such bad science surely does not pass the quality barrier of HN.

threatofrain 6y ago
Protection is a term of art and doesn't deduce causality... > This is pseudo-science. Please refrain from upvoting. You cannot prove (or imply) causation via observation. The only method we know to find causation is by setting up an experiment. This study however merely measures variables in a pre-existing context, without injecting independent variables. The only valid result you may extract from this is a correlation, never causation. > Please edit the title to reflect correlation or (IMO preferred) delete the submission, because such bad science surely does not pass the quality barrier of HN. Hmm...
- blackbrokkoli 6y ago
  Can you elaborate? If I say "vegetables save you from cancer" that implies a causation, wouldn't you agree? Just because it does not explicitly say "cause" it still very clearly says "if you do X, Y will happen". Why do you think this is not applicable?
  - threatofrain 6y ago
    It means that when the term is used professionally in literature, it doesn't mean to suggest a deduction of causality. Also, causal deduction is not the only way to arrive at a competent causal theory; humans and animals do it all the time, and they do it to such proficiency that it cannot be explained by a methodical process of causal deduction.

threatofrain 6y ago

Protection is a term of art and doesn't deduce causality... > This is pseudo-science. Please refrain from upvoting. You cannot prove (or imply) causation via observation. The only method we know to find causation is by setting up an experiment. This study however merely measures variables in a pre-existing context, without injecting independent variables. The only valid result you may extract from this is a correlation, never causation. > Please edit the title to reflect correlation or (IMO preferred) delete the submission, because such bad science surely does not pass the quality barrier of HN. Hmm...

blackbrokkoli 6y ago
Can you elaborate? If I say "vegetables save you from cancer" that implies a causation, wouldn't you agree? Just because it does not explicitly say "cause" it still very clearly says "if you do X, Y will happen". Why do you think this is not applicable?
- threatofrain 6y ago
  It means that when the term is used professionally in literature, it doesn't mean to suggest a deduction of causality. Also, causal deduction is not the only way to arrive at a competent causal theory; humans and animals do it all the time, and they do it to such proficiency that it cannot be explained by a methodical process of causal deduction.