6 ms·
Yeah, but that's true with all long term nutrition and lifestyle studies, since it's impossible to test for causation with any degree of rigor (I don't even kno
by lostcolony 6y ago
Yeah, but that's true with all long term nutrition and lifestyle studies, since it's impossible to test for causation with any degree of rigor (I don't even know what a long term double blind study would look like).
So, yes, correlation does not imply causation; it does still imply correlation. Even if a third variable, if you're getting poor sleep, you're more likely to have higher Amyloid-β build up
- gameswithgo 6y agoestablishing causation is not impossible, just hard.
- lostcolony 6y agoWe take a preponderance of correlation as evidence, but we can't really provide rigorous proof. I mean, imagine what a double blind study to, say, 'prove' that smoking causes lung cancer would entail. The ethics of causing something we have reason to suspect is harmful to a population sample is ethically extremely problematic; hence, all we frequently have is correlative. Even when it's something there isn't as big an ethical issue for it's usually not single blinded, let alone double. Diet, for instance; the groups know what they're eating. Did the differences happen because of the different diet, or because of something else (such as increased energy leading to more exercise, or the perception that they were eating 'healthy' lead to them actually becoming so, or picking up other healthy habits? Etc). As I said, establishing causation -with any degree of rigor-, is basically impossible. Otherwise we're just left with "hey, a whole buncha correlative studies indicate this, so, maybe take it as true?"