3 ms·
What you're implying here is that correlation implies causation. If 99% of farmers are Elwoods, you can't claim that one's name being Elwood means one is more
by coherentpony 12y ago
What you're implying here is that correlation implies causation.
If 99% of farmers are Elwoods, you can't claim that one's name being Elwood means one is more likely to become a farmer.
- walterbell 12y agoIn that scenario, could one claim that "one's name being Elwood means one is more likely to BE a farmer"?
- teamhappy 12y agoYup, you got it right. The wording is important. Apparently, if your name is Elwood you're more likely to be a farmer today. But that obviously doesn't mean that kids named Elwood are more likely to become farmers (it could, but I'm afraid you're gonna have to proof that). Wikipedia has some simple examples: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Correlation_does_not_imply_causation https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Correlation_does_not_imply_cau...
- madcaptenor 12y agoIn this case, it probably means that people named Elwood are more likely to (a) be older and (b) live in rural areas, both of which are correlated with being a farmer.
- stdbrouw 12y agoThe predictive element itself has little to do with correlation/causation, though. "If you have gray hair, you're more likely to die in the next ten years than people without gray hair" is a perfectly valid statement, and does not imply at all that gray hair is causing people to die. If anything, it's more like an ecological fallacy or unwarranted extrapolation to the future.
- emodendroket 12y agoDo we have to write comments here as though we're writing the final draft of a math textbook? What's meant is clear enough.
- coherentpony 12y agoWhat's clear to you may not be clear to someone else.