View Single Post
Old 06-15-2017, 01:39 PM   #12
plushkitty
 
plushkitty's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Ventura County, CA
Posts: 118
plushkitty does more than just post hot picsplushkitty does more than just post hot picsplushkitty does more than just post hot picsplushkitty does more than just post hot pics
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by TwoSwords View Post
What I found, amazingly, was this very confused situation, in the world of statistics, where people repeatedly assume that correlations implied causations, which is, of course, false. A lot of studies will show that obesity is correlated with this or that, but that's not enough to show that it causes those conditions, any more than yellow teeth cause lung cancer.

Just as yellow teeth and lung cancer correlate, because both are caused by smoking, so obesity and various conditions had a lesser correlation because obesity was a common side effect of people who didn't exercise, ate too much refined sugar, didn't eat the nutrients they needed, put themselves through too much stress, etc... However, that does absolutely nothing to prove that being fat, in isolation from these other factors, is bad for you. There's no evidence at all to show that. In fact, we have good evidence that it may benefit you under certain conditions.
Yes, exactly! And the hell of it is that the difference between correlation and causation is covered early on in statistics classes. It's one of the first things you learn. Which means that all the so-called scientists and doctors behind the obesity panic are A) letting personal and societal bias overcome their education, B) deliberately skewing their results for profit, and/or C) slept through statistics class and cheated on the tests.

Bad science irritates me. Deliberately bad science unleashes my inner Hulk.
plushkitty is offline   Reply With Quote