One of the most insane implicit epistemological rules held in deep esteem by the progressive world is this one.https://twitter.com/Caroline30/status/1385276165116637186 …
-
-
Replying to @CovfefeAnon
correlation implies the possibility of causation
1 reply 0 retweets 5 likes -
Replying to @ShiftLant
It's one of the four possible explanations. It's either causation, common cause, reverse causation or coincidence.
1 reply 0 retweets 15 likes -
Replying to @CovfefeAnon
But confounding via many common causes (multiple unblocked paths in a big causal graph) is by far the most common case, as
@gwern explains:https://www.gwern.net/Causality#shouldnt-it-be-easy …1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes -
Replying to @zackmdavis @gwern
There are multiple levels here. In academic social science the excerpt is very good summary. In *informal* usage "correlation does not equal causation" is a word-spell used to dismiss uncomfortable implications where the causation is perfectly clear but politically "wrong"pic.twitter.com/ZepQEG86yZ
1 reply 0 retweets 3 likes
IOW, academic "correlation does not equal causation" is a very good rule because that study about egg consumption is trash even if the methods were sound (which they're not) but the phrase is an excuse for not looking at reality when it's the spike in murder after de-policing
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.