Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

If correlation doesn’t imply causation, then what does? (2012)

michaelnielsen.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

71–72 of 72 posts

Re: If correlation doesn’t imply causation, then what does? (2012)

#71

Post by Goladus »

snowwrestler wrote: post #25

This article is largely focused on epidemiological studies. These are a very well-known type of scientific investigation, particularly among the tech crowd--because it is tech-intensive to manage and analyze large volumes of data. But, epidemiology is not all of science, it's just one way to do science. So this statement is wrong, or, at least, not complete: > The standard scientific answer to this question is that (…

This is an excellent explanation.

I'm not sure what you mean by paleontology being mixed up with evolutionary biology, though.

Re: If correlation doesn’t imply causation, then what does? (2012)

#72

Post by snowwrestler »

Goladus wrote: post #71
snowwrestler wrote: post #25

This article is largely focused on epidemiological studies. These are a very well-known type of scientific investigation, particularly among the tech crowd--because it is tech-intensive to manage and analyze large volumes of data. But, epidemiology is not all of science, it's just one way to do science. So this statement is wrong, or, at least, not complete: > The standard scientific answer to this question is that (…

This is an excellent explanation. I'm not sure what you mean by paleontology being mixed up with evolutionary biology, though.

A lot of critics of evolutionary theory believe that the fossil record is the most important piece of supporting evidence--hence the focus on "missing links" between species.

The scientific reality is that Darwin formulated his theory by looking at living species, and the modern study of evolutionary processes does too--primarily viruses, bacteria, and insects, because their lifespans are so short.

Post reply on HN