3 ms·

This is strange, because the example they give about "correlation does not imply causation" being a "frisco" outing you as a non-scientist is very much not supp

by feoren 3y ago

This is strange, because the example they give about "correlation does not imply causation" being a "frisco" outing you as a non-scientist is very much not supported by the Slate article they claim to have gotten it from. The Slate article provides a very reasonable take on that phrase and in fact implies that we might need more such catchy phrases outing the common fallacies that scientists make and ignore. It gives a great reason why it's such an important phrase -- because forgetting it can lead us to interventions that make things worse rather than better. If saying "correlation does not imply causation" outs you as a non-scientist, then all it's saying is "true" scientists don't give a shit about the implications of their research, nor if people misconstrue their results and use it to justify harmful interventions. Which may be true, I suppose, but it's an extremely cynical take; the phrase is about whether and how we can apply scientific results to better our world, something apparently "true" scientists don't give a shit about?

mcmoor 3y ago
I read it as in movies where a grandmaster "checkmate" another. While you do win by checkmating, most GM matches end long before it, and the losing party will resign. Not resigning when under mate in 6 can be seen as an insult that the winning GM will somehow miss the winning line like a novice and this will waste time for both parties. Although this does still happen. Back to the topic, I can see saying "correlation does not imply causation" be seen as an insult that the scientist miss a critical principle like a novice and this will waste time for both parties. Although regrettably it looks like lots of them do miss this critical principle, so this saying may still need to be repeated more often.
zeofig 3y ago
I also found that extremely weird. I'm a scientist, or at least I got a STEM PhD before I quit, and I often think about how indeed correlation does not imply causation, and how a lot of science (or the media reporting thereof) seems to think the opposite. I wouldn't use it myself because it sounds a little cliched, but I would be pleased to hear someone utter the phrase. Although it may often be accompanied by some questionable beliefs (it's 2024, we all have them), it indicates that someone has given some kind of thought to something.

by feoren 3y ago

mcmoor 3y ago

I read it as in movies where a grandmaster "checkmate" another. While you do win by checkmating, most GM matches end long before it, and the losing party will resign. Not resigning when under mate in 6 can be seen as an insult that the winning GM will somehow miss the winning line like a novice and this will waste time for both parties. Although this does still happen. Back to the topic, I can see saying "correlation does not imply causation" be seen as an insult that the scientist miss a critical principle like a novice and this will waste time for both parties. Although regrettably it looks like lots of them do miss this critical principle, so this saying may still need to be repeated more often.

zeofig 3y ago

I also found that extremely weird. I'm a scientist, or at least I got a STEM PhD before I quit, and I often think about how indeed correlation does not imply causation, and how a lot of science (or the media reporting thereof) seems to think the opposite. I wouldn't use it myself because it sounds a little cliched, but I would be pleased to hear someone utter the phrase. Although it may often be accompanied by some questionable beliefs (it's 2024, we all have them), it indicates that someone has given some kind of thought to something.