No they don’t. This is what people who don’t deeply understand statistics but want to sound smart say all the time. Correlation implies that you can consider causation, but doesn’t prove it. But people use that phrase as if correlation disproves causation. That’s plain stupidhttps://twitter.com/LeviABx/status/1244970629926998016 …
-
-
For weeks, I've been hearing "but correlation does not imply causation" re:masks despite that in this case, yes, yes, it does: we have coverage and a control (Japan, screwing up everything but masks and it's not Lombardy or NYC); analytic reasons (virus); priors (good studies).
Show this threadThanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
Which phrase? Post hoc, ergo propter hoc?
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
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.