To LUGNET HomepageTo LUGNET News HomepageTo LUGNET Guide Homepage
 Help on Searching
 
Post new message to lugnet.off-topic.debateOpen lugnet.off-topic.debate in your NNTP NewsreaderTo LUGNET News Traffic PageSign In (Members)
 Off-Topic / Debate / 16048
16047  |  16049
Subject: 
Re: The value of reading (was: If you could leave any book on Kjeld's nightstand...)
Newsgroups: 
lugnet.off-topic.debate
Date: 
Wed, 3 Apr 2002 17:33:10 GMT
Viewed: 
1397 times
  
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Dave Schuler writes:
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Larry Pieniazek writes:

Chris's words seem pretty clear to me... there seems to be a statistical
link  (a correlation) between poverty and education level, to wit, people
who are poor seem to have less formal education. But he's caveating that by
pointing out that merely noting that statistical correlation doesn't imply
causality.

You are, of course, absolutely correct to point out the difference between
correlation and causation, but it must be recalled that statistical data are
routinely used by both sides in all kinds of discussions, so Allan can be
forgiven for suggesting a causative relationship between some A and some B.
For instance, every time the gun debate crops up here, someone eventually
says "areas with more guns have lower crime rates," which is a statement
based entirely on a particular reading of a particular set of statistics.
Further, that statement is *invariably* used to imply causation.
For that matter, we can't dismiss statistics simply because life doesn't
always work by the numbers--I cross the street on the basis of informal ad
hoc statistical reasoning: "if the light is red and I don't see a car
coming, I am X% safe to cross the street here and now."  Sure, we seldom
articulate it to ourselves that way, but in any sort of cost/benefit
scenario, don't we go through some sort of similar analysis?

Yes, I agree with all of the above. Nevertheless it's irrelevant. My
question really was to Allan, because I honestly didn't understand what it
was he didn't understand about what Chris said.

I mostly stay out of .debate these days but this one just jumped out at me.

Honestly, I'm not trying to bait you, but I'd be interested to read
anyone's opinions on the dual-edged sword of "useful" statistics.

Me too.



Message has 1 Reply:
  Re: The value of reading (was: If you could leave any book on Kjeld's nightstand...)
 
(...) Hey! My irrelevance is *always* relevant. I've noticed that Chris' grasp of statistics is stronger than mine, and sometimes his articulations on the subject can muddle my brain a bit (more). Perhaps Allan was suffering a similar verbal (...) (22 years ago, 3-Apr-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Message is in Reply To:
  Re: The value of reading (was: If you could leave any book on Kjeld's nightstand...)
 
(...) You are, of course, absolutely correct to point out the difference between correlation and causation, but it must be recalled that statistical data are routinely used by both sides in all kinds of discussions, so Allan can be forgiven for (...) (22 years ago, 2-Apr-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

59 Messages in This Thread:































Entire Thread on One Page:
Nested:  All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:  All | Brief | Compact

This Message and its Replies on One Page:
Nested:  All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:  All | Brief | Compact
    

Custom Search

©2005 LUGNET. All rights reserved. - hosted by steinbruch.info GbR