Comments on: Correlation, causation, and association – What does it all mean???

By: Marcus

Marcus — Mon, 12 Sep 2011 08:11:54 +0000

i think this arcticle is very needed in that it shows how research is done and how certain conclusions are made however i dont appreciate the marijuana reference. i guess it was an easy analogy but what about the association of marijuana and cancer or glaucoma? still a very good read.

By: Suanne Stromberg

Suanne Stromberg — Thu, 02 Dec 2010 18:33:57 +0000

Priceless data contained by articles can make up for a fantastic e-book. This way your energy doesn’t remain buried beneath piles and piles of similar content in article directories, instead it continues to make prospects and affiliate income through intelligent link positioning within the content. Merely an idea broaden article marketing potential…

By: Tim Smith

Tim Smith — Wed, 22 Sep 2010 16:08:05 +0000

Outstandingly educational thank you, I do think your current readers would probably want more stories like that keep up the good content.

By: Adi Jaffe

Adi Jaffe — Wed, 28 Jul 2010 15:42:18 +0000

Thanks for writing Josie,
In general, as I point out, scientists will NEVER claim that correlation proves causation. However, studies using correlations can use a whole slew of statistical techniques to rule out other KNOWN risk factors, making assertions about a relationship (still not causal) much stronger. What journalists do with scientific findings is often unfortunate, but they’re the ones to be yelled at here, most scientists adhere to the rule.
As you point out, there are many children who die from SIDS who are never exposed to second hand smoke (too me a second to get the acronym). There also many people who die in car accidents who never drink and drive but we know that driving while intoxicated increases the likelihood that you will get involved in a fatal car crash. Here even causality doesn’t have to mean a 1 to 1 ratio where engaging in activity A necessarily leads to outcome B.
SHS is considered to cause cancer in people who don’t smoke because over and over, in repeated studies using different populations and controlling for different factors (like age, SES, education, other health habits, etc.) SHS has been shown to be associated with an increased incidence, and prevalence, of cancer.
I agree with the genetic disposition argument, but that’s probably only half the equation, the rest is behavioral (smoking, eating specific foods and not others) and environmental (SHS, stress, etc.).
If you want to go straight to the source, read the academic articles (search on google scholar for instance) and not using popular media, who often distorts findings. Still, keep an open mind and be willing to accept, at least tentatively, findings that disagre with your viewpoint if the evidence seems to be there.
Best
Adi

By: Josie

Josie — Wed, 28 Jul 2010 14:03:42 +0000

Good day:

I happened upon this website while researching correlation and causation.

Let me state first that I appreciate the efforts of scientific research because, in many cases, cures and a better understanding are discovered.

However, I do have an issue with correlation resulting in causation when too many other “risk factors” are evident but ignored (?).

Correlation does not necessarily equal causation, yet there are numerous “results” published erroneously (in my opinion). For instance: How can it be determined that SHS causes SIDS when there are so many babies dying of SIDS who have NEVER been exposed? It is unfair and unethical to publish findings that create a “hyperbolic mass hysteria” in society. I could go on further with the “assumptions, allegations, and opinions” stating that SHS CAUSES cancer in people who do not smoke.

Genetic mapping is the prominent factor here and whether a person smokes or not, if you are genetically predisposed, there is a good chance you will contract cancer.

I thank you for “listening” and hope that, someday, the published reports are corrected and order restored to our society.

Regards,

Josie