Every time I come across an article about cancer, I'm reminded of that website that catalogued all the things that The Daily Mail said either caused or prevented cancer.
The strength of the correlation might be the only useful single variable we can have in discussions like this.
I'm starting to think that "Correlation is not causation" is a kind of slippery slope toward a world where nobody can ever prove the cause of anything. At the same time, just about everything is at least a mild carcinogen including food, the sun, air particulates, etc. But knowing that everything causes cancer isn't useful information. Knowing the strength of the correlations of each of these things is actually useful.
Magi604 · · focus · HN ↗
<a href="https://web.archive.org/web/20200221175201/http://kill-or-cure.herokuapp.com/" rel="nofollow">https://web.archive.org/web/20200221175201/http://kill-or-cu...
Too bad it's down, but here's an archive of it.
kreelman · · focus · HN ↗
tjwebbnorfolk · · focus · HN ↗
I'm starting to think that "Correlation is not causation" is a kind of slippery slope toward a world where nobody can ever prove the cause of anything. At the same time, just about everything is at least a mild carcinogen including food, the sun, air particulates, etc. But knowing that everything causes cancer isn't useful information. Knowing the strength of the correlations of each of these things is actually useful.
Without correlation, what are we left with?
asdfasvea · · focus · HN ↗
Saying 'Correlation isn't causation' doesn't disprove causation.
[deleted] · · focus · HN ↗
[deleted]