I hoped to see a systematic explanation of what the correlations show. As long as we don't have a viable explanation, there is something interesting there to discover. It can be that the statistical analysis is fundamentally flawed. Pointing out a flaw that tricked several serious researchers is progress. If it was because of some other factor (let's assume there are many more elderly people living around those neighborhoods, can't think of a better example now).
Maybe certain demographics of people live near Costcos, and they're the kind that due to income have poorer diets or are more exposed to pollutants...
Meanwhile I'd guess around Harvard the population would be richer. Hypothesis: Being rich and being able to survive to old age also means a higher chance of cancer to be the thing that offs you.
> As long as we don't have a viable explanation, there is something interesting there to discover.
This assumes there is something which needs explanation. For any finite string of gibberish there are an infinite number of languages which can be constructed to ascribe it profound meaning. All patterns in data must be assumed to be illusions until testable predictions made from them are found to be consistently accurate more often than otherwise expected.
aljgz · · focus · HN ↗
[deleted] · · focus · HN ↗
[deleted]
paimapi · · focus · HN ↗
netsharc · · focus · HN ↗
Meanwhile I'd guess around Harvard the population would be richer. Hypothesis: Being rich and being able to survive to old age also means a higher chance of cancer to be the thing that offs you.
jjk166 · · focus · HN ↗
This assumes there is something which needs explanation. For any finite string of gibberish there are an infinite number of languages which can be constructed to ascribe it profound meaning. All patterns in data must be assumed to be illusions until testable predictions made from them are found to be consistently accurate more often than otherwise expected.