Is accusing scientists of mixing up causality with correlation the latest fashion

[daedalus_dude]

of the anti-knowledge crowd.

It seems like anytime posts a controversial study here, someone will respond with "well, they are mixing causality and correlation".

Pretty much like any thread on medical studies will get at least one "that is probably just the placebo effect".

The difference between causality and correlation is something any trained scientist knows. For them to mix it up is about as likely as an auto mechanic mixing up the clutch with the gas pedal.

Also, its good to be a sceptic, but just because something is controversial doesn't mean its wrong (or right). All interesting science is controversial. If a scientists wants to discover anything non-trivial he must keep an open ear for "anecdotal evidence".

Stuff that anyone can read up on wikipedia is not interesting science, and probably no big deal anymore in the community.

[nebenaube]

1. Sorry, but those with an agenda frequently do pretend to confuse the two... n/t

[western mass]

2. As a working scientist

I can tell you that many scientists push interpretations that suggest causation when the evidence is mainly correlation. The scientific literature is full of dubious claims, and we get closer to the truth through a process of rigorous scepticism.

I disagree that all interesting science is controversial. Alot of interesting science makes other scientists nod and say "cool, that makes sense." Alot of controversial science ends up being exposed for the crap that it is.

[stray cat]

3. Scientists get it - americans are largely ignorant of logic or the scientific method

[muriel_volestrangler]

4. xkcd on causation and correlation:

http://xkcd.com/552/

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

5. You haven't read many of the "medical" gun studies have you.

[Johonny]

6. I think it's the way the media presents results not DUers fault

The actual peer reviewed paper usually has a result section and a discussion section. A section where the researcher writes what they actually measured. Then a section where they theorize what it might mean and try to put their results into context of research to date. However when the media reproduces the paper they often blend the two sections producing a much stronger statement from the results than was actually presented.

If you watched the Ardi special and then read the Science articles on Ardi. You would notice the difference between how science is presented in Science journals and in the popular press.