3 ms·
No, the R^2 is 1.0 between (dhmo-exposure,got-diabetes). You're talking about (dhmo-exposure,!got-diabetes) which turns out to also have a 1.0 correlation, whic
by mpyne 14y ago
No, the R^2 is 1.0 between (dhmo-exposure,got-diabetes). You're talking about (dhmo-exposure,!got-diabetes) which turns out to also have a 1.0 correlation, which was kind of the point of my snark in the first place.
Those who don't understand even the basics of correlation are doomed to be led astray by statistics. The authors of the paper in question seem to understand it just fine, it would be nice if we could expect even minimal statistic comprehension from those making follow-on claims using the paper as supporting evidence.
- gamblor956 14y agoNo, your snark fails because you picked the wrong variables. Got Diabetes necessarily implies a population of Did Not Get Diabetes, so the r^2 would not be 1.0. On the other hand, the r^2 between Have Diabetes and Water Exposure would be 1.0.