5 ms·

Predict is something you can do if something is "correlated"! Having creativity is highly correlated with a longer life, therefore, creativity can be used as a

by meric 14y ago

Predict is something you can do if something is "correlated"! Having creativity is highly correlated with a longer life, therefore, creativity can be used as a factor to predict whether a person has longer life. It doesn't mean that if you get more creative you live longer, just that if you look at the existing population, the more creative people are likely to live longer also. See? Search for this phrase in this paper "We show how simple image statistics can be used to predict the presence and absence of objects in the scene before exploring the image." http://cvcl.mit.edu/papers/TorralbaOliva03.pdf http://cvcl.mit.edu/papers/TorralbaOliva03.pdf You can see how "predict" is a word for an action you can take if something is correlated.

lutusp 14y ago
> Predict is something you can do if something is "correlated"! This is false. I saw a puddle, so I predict that the puddle will cause rain. See the problem? You can't "predict" until you have a cause-effect relationship. A correlation is not a cause-effect relationship: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Correlation_does_not_imply_causation http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Correlation_does_not_imply_caus... A quote: "The opposite belief, correlation proves causation, is a logical fallacy by which two events that occur together are claimed to have a cause-and-effect relationship. The fallacy is also known as cum hoc ergo propter hoc (Latin for "with this, therefore because of this") and false cause. It is a common fallacy in which it is assumed that, because two things or events occur together, one must be the cause of the other." > You can see how "predict" is a word for an action you can take if something is correlated. You may be able to do that. Scientists require evidence.
- dllthomas 14y ago
  Evidence of a correlation is all that's necessary to do that, scientist or not. What a correlation tells me is that if I observe A, I am likely to observe B. In the case of rain and puddles, there is a temporal component that seems to be confusing you. Rain now is correlated with puddles for a while in the future. Puddles now may not be correlated with rain now or in the future[1]. Observing puddles now, I can't tell you anything about rain in the future because there is no correlation, not because there is no causation. [1] If the weather in the area tends to be the same day to day, then I can absolutely predict rain tomorrow based on puddles today, to occasionally be frustrated by weather change or sprinklers.
  - lutusp 14y ago
    > there is a temporal component that seems to be confusing you. I am not confused. Confusing correlation with causation is a very common logical error -- you are not alone.
    - dllthomas 14y ago
      Please respond to the point of my post, if you are going to respond. "I'm not confused, you are" adds nothing to the discussion - obviously, we both think that. And yes, confusing correlation with causation is a common logical error - one that, I believe, you have become oversensitive to such that you are spotting it where it doesn't exist. This, I thought, was already established before your post here.
      - lutusp 14y ago
        > "I'm not confused, you are" adds nothing to the discussion That might be true if anyone had said it (avoid rhetorical escalation). > And yes, confusing correlation with causation is a common logical error - one that, I believe, you have become oversensitive to such that you are spotting it where it doesn't exist. The post that started this thread correctly identifies a case of touting a correlation as though it represents a cause-effect relationship. This is very common in popular science journalism, where data sets that barely represent a correlation are described as though they were cause-effect relationships, and begin to shape public policy well in advance of, and sometimes in the perpetual absence of, any effort to establish a cause-effect link between some A and some B.
        dllthomas 14y ago
        > That might be true if anyone had said it (avoid rhetorical escalation). You have a habit of denying the obvious that is leading me to believe you are trolling, your profile and post history to the contrary. You said, word for word, "I am not confused." You then proceeded to say, "Confusing correlation with causation is a very common logical error -- you are not alone." This is quite clearly a statement that I am confused about correlation vs. causation. Therefore, semantically, you said "I am not confused, you are" plus the well established point that confusion was related to correlation and causation.
- meric 14y ago
  Correlation is statistical evidence. You broke your own example by inserting the word "cause" into the sentence. Of course your example is a cause-effect relationship. Statistical evidence suggesting correlation of two factors A and B are enough for one to say "The presence of A predicts B" as well as "The presence of B predicts A". Please, don't warp the meaning of the word "predict". "I predict tomorrow is going to rain" There is no way that sentence suggests a cause-effect relationship. "This specific color pattern in the image is a great predictor of the presence of rain when the photograph was taken" Neither does this sentence suggests a cause-effect relationship. No one here is confused between correlation and causation. I'm simply insisting the word "predict" has to do with correlation, not causation.
  - lutusp 14y ago
    > Correlation is statistical evidence. Yes -- evidence of a correlation, not a cause-effect relationship. > Of course your example is a cause-effect relationship. Puddles and rain? Yes, but it is only a description, not an explanation. Science requires explanations. Otherwise we open the door to pseudoscience, to people claiming any associations they care to claim. > Please, don't warp the meaning of the word "predict". It is you who is doing that -- look at the definitions at the bottom of this post. Here's another example. I have a cure for the common cold -- I shake a dried gourd over the patient's head until he get better. Sometimes it takes a week, but my treatment always works. The correlation is perfect, therefore I deserve a Nobel Prize for ridding the world of this scourge. My dried gourd treatment "predicts" that the cold sufferer will get better -- always. > I'm simply insisting the word "predict" has to do with correlation, not causation. And you are mistaken. Rain is a predictor for bumper crops, but bumper crops are not a predictor for rain. Teenage driving is a predictor for car crashes, but car crashes are not a predictor for teenage driving. A recent bogus study found a correlation between marijuana use and lower IQ. But the marijuana use did not predict the IQ drop, it was only correlated with it, and the researchers included this fact in their article. Needless to say, the science journalists ignored the qualifiers in the article and announced that marijuana use predicted a fall in IQ: http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/health/2012/08/27/teenage-marijuana-use-may-hurt-future-iq/ http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/health/2012/08/27/teenage-mariju... Here's another account of the same study that makes a claim in its title that the article body contradicts. Title: "Smoking Pot In Teen Years Lowers IQ Later". A quote from the article: "But those who consistently smoke marijuana may simply make less intellectually stimulating choices at critical points in life." Here is another bogus study: "Low I.Q. Predicts Heart Disease": http://well.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/02/10/low-i-q-predicts-heart-disease/ http://well.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/02/10/low-i-q-predicts-he... Except for the fact that it's only a correlation, and use of the term "predicts" is nonsense. Needless to say, the article doesn't consider that the low IQ might predict the heart disease, not the reverse. > I'm simply insisting the word "predict" has to do with correlation, not causation. Yes, and you are mistaken. http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/predict http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/predict "to declare or tell in advance; prophesy; foretell: to predict the weather; to predict the fall of a civilization." http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/predict http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/predict "to declare or indicate in advance; especially : foretell on the basis of observation, experience, or scientific reason" Q.E.D.

by meric 14y ago

lutusp 14y ago

> Predict is something you can do if something is "correlated"! This is false. I saw a puddle, so I predict that the puddle will cause rain. See the problem? You can't "predict" until you have a cause-effect relationship. A correlation is not a cause-effect relationship: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Correlation_does_not_imply_causation http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Correlation_does_not_imply_caus... A quote: "The opposite belief, correlation proves causation, is a logical fallacy by which two events that occur together are claimed to have a cause-and-effect relationship. The fallacy is also known as cum hoc ergo propter hoc (Latin for "with this, therefore because of this") and false cause. It is a common fallacy in which it is assumed that, because two things or events occur together, one must be the cause of the other." > You can see how "predict" is a word for an action you can take if something is correlated. You may be able to do that. Scientists require evidence.

dllthomas 14y ago
Evidence of a correlation is all that's necessary to do that, scientist or not. What a correlation tells me is that if I observe A, I am likely to observe B. In the case of rain and puddles, there is a temporal component that seems to be confusing you. Rain now is correlated with puddles for a while in the future. Puddles now may not be correlated with rain now or in the future[1]. Observing puddles now, I can't tell you anything about rain in the future because there is no correlation, not because there is no causation. [1] If the weather in the area tends to be the same day to day, then I can absolutely predict rain tomorrow based on puddles today, to occasionally be frustrated by weather change or sprinklers.
- lutusp 14y ago
  > there is a temporal component that seems to be confusing you. I am not confused. Confusing correlation with causation is a very common logical error -- you are not alone.
  - dllthomas 14y ago
    Please respond to the point of my post, if you are going to respond. "I'm not confused, you are" adds nothing to the discussion - obviously, we both think that. And yes, confusing correlation with causation is a common logical error - one that, I believe, you have become oversensitive to such that you are spotting it where it doesn't exist. This, I thought, was already established before your post here.
    - lutusp 14y ago
      > "I'm not confused, you are" adds nothing to the discussion That might be true if anyone had said it (avoid rhetorical escalation). > And yes, confusing correlation with causation is a common logical error - one that, I believe, you have become oversensitive to such that you are spotting it where it doesn't exist. The post that started this thread correctly identifies a case of touting a correlation as though it represents a cause-effect relationship. This is very common in popular science journalism, where data sets that barely represent a correlation are described as though they were cause-effect relationships, and begin to shape public policy well in advance of, and sometimes in the perpetual absence of, any effort to establish a cause-effect link between some A and some B.
      - dllthomas 14y ago
        > That might be true if anyone had said it (avoid rhetorical escalation). You have a habit of denying the obvious that is leading me to believe you are trolling, your profile and post history to the contrary. You said, word for word, "I am not confused." You then proceeded to say, "Confusing correlation with causation is a very common logical error -- you are not alone." This is quite clearly a statement that I am confused about correlation vs. causation. Therefore, semantically, you said "I am not confused, you are" plus the well established point that confusion was related to correlation and causation.
meric 14y ago
Correlation is statistical evidence. You broke your own example by inserting the word "cause" into the sentence. Of course your example is a cause-effect relationship. Statistical evidence suggesting correlation of two factors A and B are enough for one to say "The presence of A predicts B" as well as "The presence of B predicts A". Please, don't warp the meaning of the word "predict". "I predict tomorrow is going to rain" There is no way that sentence suggests a cause-effect relationship. "This specific color pattern in the image is a great predictor of the presence of rain when the photograph was taken" Neither does this sentence suggests a cause-effect relationship. No one here is confused between correlation and causation. I'm simply insisting the word "predict" has to do with correlation, not causation.
- lutusp 14y ago
  > Correlation is statistical evidence. Yes -- evidence of a correlation, not a cause-effect relationship. > Of course your example is a cause-effect relationship. Puddles and rain? Yes, but it is only a description, not an explanation. Science requires explanations. Otherwise we open the door to pseudoscience, to people claiming any associations they care to claim. > Please, don't warp the meaning of the word "predict". It is you who is doing that -- look at the definitions at the bottom of this post. Here's another example. I have a cure for the common cold -- I shake a dried gourd over the patient's head until he get better. Sometimes it takes a week, but my treatment always works. The correlation is perfect, therefore I deserve a Nobel Prize for ridding the world of this scourge. My dried gourd treatment "predicts" that the cold sufferer will get better -- always. > I'm simply insisting the word "predict" has to do with correlation, not causation. And you are mistaken. Rain is a predictor for bumper crops, but bumper crops are not a predictor for rain. Teenage driving is a predictor for car crashes, but car crashes are not a predictor for teenage driving. A recent bogus study found a correlation between marijuana use and lower IQ. But the marijuana use did not predict the IQ drop, it was only correlated with it, and the researchers included this fact in their article. Needless to say, the science journalists ignored the qualifiers in the article and announced that marijuana use predicted a fall in IQ: http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/health/2012/08/27/teenage-marijuana-use-may-hurt-future-iq/ http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/health/2012/08/27/teenage-mariju... Here's another account of the same study that makes a claim in its title that the article body contradicts. Title: "Smoking Pot In Teen Years Lowers IQ Later". A quote from the article: "But those who consistently smoke marijuana may simply make less intellectually stimulating choices at critical points in life." Here is another bogus study: "Low I.Q. Predicts Heart Disease": http://well.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/02/10/low-i-q-predicts-heart-disease/ http://well.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/02/10/low-i-q-predicts-he... Except for the fact that it's only a correlation, and use of the term "predicts" is nonsense. Needless to say, the article doesn't consider that the low IQ might predict the heart disease, not the reverse. > I'm simply insisting the word "predict" has to do with correlation, not causation. Yes, and you are mistaken. http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/predict http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/predict "to declare or tell in advance; prophesy; foretell: to predict the weather; to predict the fall of a civilization." http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/predict http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/predict "to declare or indicate in advance; especially : foretell on the basis of observation, experience, or scientific reason" Q.E.D.