We've had so many ridiculous rounds, and it is still going on. Sure, there are correlations that are misleading due to confounding, but of course correlation IMPLIES possible causation because they do tend to go together. Correlation hints at causation and says we should check!
-
-
Show this thread
-
Masks, antibodies, and yes, still early to tell for sure but weather/seasonality and BCG... If anything the default assumption should be some immunity with antibodies given prior evidence and yet, I so so many panicked "vaccine not possible" comments. https://twitter.com/dylanhmorris/status/1257335215493611520 …
This Tweet is unavailable.Show this thread -
Because while we caution people to check for confounding variables—as one should—causative dynamics are of course often correlated with consequences they cause! It's like the only stats people learned is the warning but we didn't teach basic of causation.https://twitter.com/shinobi42/status/1257334933728768005 …
Show this thread -
WHO has flunked the communication of the science of this in many ways, but media folks, too. Basics: absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. "No evidence" doesn't mean false. Correlation hints (sometimes strongly) at causation, but doesn't prove it by itself. Not hard!
Show this thread -
Yeah, another major failure. WHO went to China, traveled with all the minders, and didn't see evidence of asymptomatic transmission and told us there was none instead of telling us we didn't know, and communicate the limits of what they could ascertain.https://twitter.com/BolognaFishMD/status/1257197972539838467 …
Show this thread -
Coverage has already gotten into the horse-race framing! Instead of political polls or sports betting, we now have model tracking etc. It's not productive or healthy, nor will it help guide us out of here. It's misleading. We aren't getting what we need.https://twitter.com/eadhed/status/1257337806009044993 …
Show this thread -
Yes! There are many types of evidence besides randomized-trials. Sometimes it's not even possible to have randomized trials but that doesn't mean we should act like all the other types of evidence don't exist or are meaningless.https://twitter.com/jeremyphoward/status/1257346654409285635 …
Show this thread
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
I am interested in why you say "correlation does not imply causation" is wrong?
-
Causation doesn't materialize out of the blue. Correlation is observed, causation is hypothesized and proven or disproven. The statement is typically leveled as a red herring. I am guessing. Not a mind reader otherwise. Also curious about Zeynep's meaning.
- Show replies
New conversation -
-
-
The correct answer is that correlation *implies* causation but it doesn't prove it. Correlation is evidence that the thing which causes A could be related to the thing which causes B, but the relationship may or may not be direct or only holds under some conditions.
-
Correlation implies causation in the informal sense, not in the formal sense. "Suggests" is probably less ambiguous
End of conversation
New conversation -
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.