All too often when liberals cite statistics, they forget the statisticians' warning that correlation is not causation.
Sentiment: NEGATIVE
Much of what I do in my job is think about whether relationships we see in data are causal, as opposed to just reflecting correlations. It's exactly these issues which come up in evaluating studies in public health.
There has been this - and it's reflected in the broadcasts - this moronic use of statistics. Which has suggested to everyone who is intelligent the use of statistics is moronic.
People today sometimes get uncomfortable with empirical claims that seem to clash with their political assumptions, often because they haven't given much thought to the connections.
I do not believe any of the statistical claims that are made about public opinion. I don't see why anybody does.
A great book seeks to explain causality, not correlation. It works to point out the circumstances in which it works, and where it doesn't. And in so doing, it is broadly applicable.
It is now proved beyond doubt that smoking is one of the leading causes of statistics.
Facts are stubborn, but statistics are more pliable.
There are two kinds of statistics, the kind you look up and the kind you make up.
I found out that smoking is the leading cause of statistics.
There are lies, damned lies and statistics.