Since you and Charles are both asking after clarification of the same
issue, I've combined my answer in a reply to him.
On 07/18/[masked]:51 PM somebody named G wrote:
> Perhaps you mean something different from how this comes across. Surely
> you are not implying that say, for example, there the correlation
> (statistically speaking) is the most powerful stat? It sounds like you
> are making a huge leap from what Charles said, that there is no "proof"
> in science, to saying that science does not try to look for causality. I
> think double blinded controlled studies are trying to do a pretty damned
> rigorous job of looking for causality. Perhaps you are referring to the
> whole statisical probability aspect of natural laws in physics? If so, I
> think we are talking about things on different levels.
> I have a decent background in applied stats, and work in medical
> research, so I hope that I, and others involved in research haven't just
> been frittering away our time looking for mere correlations.
> I point this out because your statement could be a dangerous one to make
> to a public who already has a poor understanding of science, and who
> like to either accept correlations as equaling causation, or who equally
> erroneously, dismiss important rigorous scientific findings by saying,
> "Oh, you can use stats to prove anything, it's meaningless."
> */ken <[address removed]>/* wrote:
> Excellent point, Charles. Science gave up on ascertaining causality
> quite a while ago. At most, contemporary research demonstrates a
> statistical correlation between two phenomena.
> Please Note: If you hit "*REPLY*", your message will be sent to
> *everyone* on this mailing list ([address removed]
> <mailto:[address removed]>)
> This message was sent by G ([address removed]) from The Cleveland
> To learn more about G, visit his/her member profile
> To unsubscribe or to update your mailing list settings, click here
> Meetup.com Customer Service: [address removed]
> 632 Broadway New York NY 10012 USA