Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Pastimes : Heart Attacks, Cancer and strokes. Preventative approaches -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Joe NYC who wrote (4872)	5/3/2009 5:16:46 PM
From: spiral3	1 Recommendation Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 39298

That's precisely why I picked it. To show that 100% correlation does not prove causation. Except that your example did not show 100% correlation and you did not show that you were aware of this. Maybe you were thinking that in your mind, but you did not show it, simply did not make the contents of your mind apparent, with the level of clarity you perceive. This kind of thing can lead to problems when it comes into contact with the outside world. We are not mind readers, you have to spell it out better. Anyway this is a diversion, as the owner of the aforementioned content you're entitled to the last word. Further, if perfect 100% correlation prove causation, does a very weak correlation prove causation? No. Again a binary position. What about associations that are not 100% or very weak. I think that causation and association are important factors, you seem to want to wage a war on the later, I say ignore them at your peril. It reminds me of the possible role of infection in heart disease that E. Charters brought up on the other thread. We have seen a meaningful association between gum disease and heart disease. Does gum disease cause heart disease, I don’t think it’s been scientifically proven thus far that it does, but there is a strong association. Perhaps those with gum disease are more likely to be following unhealthier lifestyles in the first place, making causative determination very difficult for some scientists, or rather, the relationship is reciprocal. This does not mean that the info we have from the science so far, is useless, let alone inconsequential. In my view it’s irrelevant that science has not proved “causation” in this instance, I believe such phenomena co-arise or are dependently originated, and the pre-sense, or presence of meaningful association means taking preventative measures where possible.