Changes

:::: Not to weigh in on either side of this discussion, but it is important to remember when reading any type of study or research article that a '''correlation does not imply causality''' - this is a basic statistical principle that helps us to avoid erroneous conclusions based on coincidence. MHarris is correct to ask whether or not a factor being correlated to a negative or positive effect is actually responsible for this effect. To answer this question, the study must perform some kind of experimentation, set up their own system that can be perturbed to determine if the effect being measured is actually impacted by the factor of interest.--[[User:Mike127|Mike127]] 23:58, 16 June 2011 (EDT)

:::: Not to weigh in on either side of this discussion, but it is important to remember when reading any type of study or research article that a '''correlation does not imply causality''' - this is a basic statistical principle that helps us to avoid erroneous conclusions based on coincidence. MHarris is correct to ask whether or not a factor being correlated to a negative or positive effect is actually responsible for this effect. To answer this question, the study must perform some kind of experimentation, set up their own system that can be perturbed to determine if the effect being measured is actually impacted by the factor of interest.--[[User:Mike127|Mike127]] 23:58, 16 June 2011 (EDT)

::::::But not in the way MHarris has asked - or rather, ''demanded'' - for proof.  It's one thing to ask, and then sit back and merely wait for a response, but another to badger to the point of antagonism.  [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 00:02, 17 June 2011 (EDT)

::::::But not in the way MHarris has asked - or rather, ''demanded'' - for proof.  It's one thing to ask, and then sit back and merely wait for a response, but another to badger to the point of antagonism.  [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 00:02, 17 June 2011 (EDT)