3 ms·

Goodness, are you not familiar with the phrase "correlation does not imply causation"? There are ways to establish causal relationships, the gold standard of w

by nvy 3y ago

Goodness, are you not familiar with the phrase "correlation does not imply causation"? There are ways to establish causal relationships, the gold standard of which is to conduct a double-blind controlled trial. To claim as you have that a correlational study establishes a causal relationship is deeply misguided, irrespective of whether or not it is peer-reviewed.

silent_cal 3y ago
Yes I am - you don't seem to know that all a double-blind controlled trial produces is (at best) a very strong correlation. I'm not claiming that a correlational study implies causation. I'm claiming that ALL statistical analyses can only prove correlation, and never causation. You're wrong about double-blind controlled trials proving causation.
- nvy 3y ago
  You are factually incorrect. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7081045/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7081045/ >In clinical medical research, causality is demonstrated by randomized controlled trials (RCTs). https://www.sagepub.com/sites/default/files/upm-binaries/23639_Chapter_5___Causation_and_Experimental_Design.pdf https://www.sagepub.com/sites/default/files/upm-binaries/236... https://www.statisticssolutions.com/dissertation-resources/research-designs/establishing-cause-and-effect/ https://www.statisticssolutions.com/dissertation-resources/r... https://www.abs.gov.au/statistics/understanding-statistics/statistical-terms-and-concepts/correlation-and-causation https://www.abs.gov.au/statistics/understanding-statistics/s... https://www2.stat.duke.edu/~jerry/Papers/causal.pdf https://www2.stat.duke.edu/~jerry/Papers/causal.pdf If you argue this further I'm just going to conclude you're trolling and won't respond again. You are wrong. Face it.
  - silent_cal 3y ago
    You're confusing strong evidence for causality with establishment and absolute proof of causality. This is even discussed in the sources you've cited (second link). For example here is a quote from one of your sources about the necessity understanding the underlying mechanism before causality can be established: > A causal mechanism is the process that creates the connection between the variation in an independent variable and the variation in the dependent variable that it is hypothesized to cause (Cook & Campbell, 1979:35; Marini & Singer, 1988). Many social scientists (and scientists in other fields) argue that no causal explanation is adequate until a mechanism is identified.
    - nvy 3y ago
      >If you argue this further I'm just going to conclude you're trolling and won't respond again. >You are wrong. Face it.
      - silent_cal 3y ago
        Thank you for demonstrating your willingness to engage with opposing viewpoints even when supporting evidence is presented (;
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]

by nvy 3y ago

silent_cal 3y ago

Yes I am - you don't seem to know that all a double-blind controlled trial produces is (at best) a very strong correlation. I'm not claiming that a correlational study implies causation. I'm claiming that ALL statistical analyses can only prove correlation, and never causation. You're wrong about double-blind controlled trials proving causation.

nvy 3y ago
You are factually incorrect. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7081045/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7081045/ >In clinical medical research, causality is demonstrated by randomized controlled trials (RCTs). https://www.sagepub.com/sites/default/files/upm-binaries/23639_Chapter_5___Causation_and_Experimental_Design.pdf https://www.sagepub.com/sites/default/files/upm-binaries/236... https://www.statisticssolutions.com/dissertation-resources/research-designs/establishing-cause-and-effect/ https://www.statisticssolutions.com/dissertation-resources/r... https://www.abs.gov.au/statistics/understanding-statistics/statistical-terms-and-concepts/correlation-and-causation https://www.abs.gov.au/statistics/understanding-statistics/s... https://www2.stat.duke.edu/~jerry/Papers/causal.pdf https://www2.stat.duke.edu/~jerry/Papers/causal.pdf If you argue this further I'm just going to conclude you're trolling and won't respond again. You are wrong. Face it.
- silent_cal 3y ago
  You're confusing strong evidence for causality with establishment and absolute proof of causality. This is even discussed in the sources you've cited (second link). For example here is a quote from one of your sources about the necessity understanding the underlying mechanism before causality can be established: > A causal mechanism is the process that creates the connection between the variation in an independent variable and the variation in the dependent variable that it is hypothesized to cause (Cook & Campbell, 1979:35; Marini & Singer, 1988). Many social scientists (and scientists in other fields) argue that no causal explanation is adequate until a mechanism is identified.
  - nvy 3y ago
    >If you argue this further I'm just going to conclude you're trolling and won't respond again. >You are wrong. Face it.
    - silent_cal 3y ago
      Thank you for demonstrating your willingness to engage with opposing viewpoints even when supporting evidence is presented (;
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]