5 ms·

"Clusters of correlation" is another way of saying random clusters occur from mere statistics with no input from Monsanto, but you want to blame them anyway? I

"Clusters of correlation" is another way of saying random clusters occur from mere statistics with no input from Monsanto, but you want to blame them anyway? If cosmic rays cause some rate of cancer, then clusters will occur, and you can then blame anything for "clusters of correlation." Or we can simply look at the hundreds of studies showing that Monsanto is not causing this, studies done fully aware of proper statistical methods, and realize what the science community has known for decades.

eyelidlessness 5y ago
You interjected “random” and that seems odd. Correlation doesn’t mean causation but that also doesn’t mean correlation is random noise. It just means there’s an unknown relationship between facts.
- XorNot 5y ago
  The point is that a random data set will spontaneously produce clustered groups of apparent events that are not due to any underlying cause.
  - eyelidlessness 5y ago
    And a non-random data set will produce clusters of correlations which don’t have causal explanations. I’m well aware of this axiom which is why I found it important to address.
    - ChrisLomont 5y ago
      And if there were such clusters beyond pure random noise, they'd show up in studies. They don't, hence they're random noise. How many heads in a row would you expect from an unbiased coin if you flip it long enough? That is your "clusters of correlation."
- ChrisLomont 5y ago
  Correlation most certainly does not imply an unknown relation between facts. In fact, there are more completely unrelated correlations than there are correlations caused by related things. This is simple statistics. Proof? Consider M things related that show a correlation. Suppose some other thing randomly by chance correlates, and that thing has N items correlated by some other set of related facts. Then all the not causally related cross correlations between the M and N items vastly outnumber the causally ones. So no, correlation absolutely does not imply an unknown relation. It points to a place to look.
toiletfuneral 5y ago

eyelidlessness 5y ago

You interjected “random” and that seems odd. Correlation doesn’t mean causation but that also doesn’t mean correlation is random noise. It just means there’s an unknown relationship between facts.

XorNot 5y ago
The point is that a random data set will spontaneously produce clustered groups of apparent events that are not due to any underlying cause.
- eyelidlessness 5y ago
  And a non-random data set will produce clusters of correlations which don’t have causal explanations. I’m well aware of this axiom which is why I found it important to address.
  - ChrisLomont 5y ago
    And if there were such clusters beyond pure random noise, they'd show up in studies. They don't, hence they're random noise. How many heads in a row would you expect from an unbiased coin if you flip it long enough? That is your "clusters of correlation."
ChrisLomont 5y ago
Correlation most certainly does not imply an unknown relation between facts. In fact, there are more completely unrelated correlations than there are correlations caused by related things. This is simple statistics. Proof? Consider M things related that show a correlation. Suppose some other thing randomly by chance correlates, and that thing has N items correlated by some other set of related facts. Then all the not causally related cross correlations between the M and N items vastly outnumber the causally ones. So no, correlation absolutely does not imply an unknown relation. It points to a place to look.

toiletfuneral 5y ago