4 ms·

Before anyone gets too excited about another opportunity to say the line about correlation: > We acknowledge several major limitations of this study. First, it

by _moof 2y ago

Before anyone gets too excited about another opportunity to say the line about correlation: > We acknowledge several major limitations of this study. First, it is not possible to differentiate between active sun exposure habits and a healthy lifestyle, and secondly, the results are of an observational nature; therefore, a causal link cannot be proven.

hn_throwaway_99 2y ago
I mean, perhaps we don't need to say it because they say it explicitly. Which makes me think that the title about "avoidance of sun exposure" is misleading, even if not deliberately so. "Avoidance" in the general lexicon usually means conscious choices to deliberately not expose yourself to something. Is someone who is, say, obese and bedridden "avoiding" sun exposure?
assmanreturns 2y ago
Sure. This is in every single study using surveys or statistics and yet everyone thinks the paper is making a casual argument. The paper itself actually does do that. So the whole limitations part is just ass covering for the fact that the authors are lying. Why call it anything else. I mean it's like me writing a long paper proving that thermodynamics is flawed and then ending the paper with some acknowledgement that one of the key arguments has a logical flaw which renders the whole proof incorrect. So then the whole paper is worthless.
- cpncrunch 2y ago
  They do adjust the results for certain lifestyle factors, in particular exercise and smoking. They are just pointing out that they can't correct for all lifestyle factors.
SaintSeiya 2y ago
Found a sun avoidance advocate.
- jhguibcdtt 2y ago
  [flagged]
hombre_fatal 2y ago
Though a single study doesn’t create a causal link anyways. When they write that, it contributes to the meme that a study can reveal causation rather than march the convergence of evidence towards causal inferences. All studies investigate correlation and that’s okay. Though this discussion overshadows that study’s actual problems. I wager it’s only on HN because its title is an excuse for everyone to hone their hobby horse opinion on sun exposure.

by _moof 2y ago

hn_throwaway_99 2y ago

I mean, perhaps we don't need to say it because they say it explicitly. Which makes me think that the title about "avoidance of sun exposure" is misleading, even if not deliberately so. "Avoidance" in the general lexicon usually means conscious choices to deliberately not expose yourself to something. Is someone who is, say, obese and bedridden "avoiding" sun exposure?

assmanreturns 2y ago

Sure. This is in every single study using surveys or statistics and yet everyone thinks the paper is making a casual argument. The paper itself actually does do that. So the whole limitations part is just ass covering for the fact that the authors are lying. Why call it anything else. I mean it's like me writing a long paper proving that thermodynamics is flawed and then ending the paper with some acknowledgement that one of the key arguments has a logical flaw which renders the whole proof incorrect. So then the whole paper is worthless.

cpncrunch 2y ago
They do adjust the results for certain lifestyle factors, in particular exercise and smoking. They are just pointing out that they can't correct for all lifestyle factors.

SaintSeiya 2y ago

Found a sun avoidance advocate.

jhguibcdtt 2y ago
[flagged]

hombre_fatal 2y ago

Though a single study doesn’t create a causal link anyways. When they write that, it contributes to the meme that a study can reveal causation rather than march the convergence of evidence towards causal inferences. All studies investigate correlation and that’s okay. Though this discussion overshadows that study’s actual problems. I wager it’s only on HN because its title is an excuse for everyone to hone their hobby horse opinion on sun exposure.