3 ms·
I'm not sure I follow - is this what you're saying: P1: exposure X is not causally linked to outcome Y if some individuals with lower exposure to X have outcom
by KempyKolibri 1y ago
I'm not sure I follow - is this what you're saying:
P1: exposure X is not causally linked to outcome Y if some individuals with lower exposure to X have outcome Y.
P2: some individuals with lower exposure to serum cholesterol have heart attacks.
C: serum cholesterol is not causally linked to heart attacks.
Because this has some wacky implications:
P1: exposure X is not causally linked to outcome Y if some individuals with lower exposure to X have outcome Y.
P2: some individuals with lower exposure to cigarettes have lung cancer.
C: smoking is not causally linked to lung cancer.
- spacebanana7 1y agoCorrelation is informative, but neither necessary nor sufficient for causation. For example, smokers likely purchase more lighters than non-smokers so there should be some correlation between lighter purchase frequency and lung cancer. But we all know you can't get lung cancer merely from buying lighters.
- KempyKolibri 1y agoWe could grant all that for the sake of argument but it wouldn’t interact with anything I said. I’m talking specifically about the claim that because individuals with a low exposure to something don’t necessarily have a given outcome, there is no causal pathway between the exposure and the outcome. It’s not clear to me how what you’ve written speaks to anything regarding that claim. Not trying to be snarky, I just want to be really clear about the point I’m trying to make here.
- spacebanana7 1y agoAh I see what you mean. Thanks for clarifying
- KempyKolibri 1y agoWelcome! Thanks for being understanding.