Difference between revisions of "Talk:2560: Confounding Variables"
(Critique of the cartoon character's arguments.) |
|||
| Line 9: | Line 9: | ||
"([https://www.explainxkcd.com/wiki/index.php?title=2560:_Confounding_Variables&diff=prev&oldid=223220 Why was the word "remit" used and why was it linked to Mythbusters? Both were unnecessarily confusing.])"... Well, "remit" ≈ "purpose" as I used it (Wiktionary, Noun section, item 1: "(chiefly Britain) Terms of reference; set of responsibilities; scope. quotations" - seeing that it's apparently British, and the <s>remit</s> scope of most of the verb forms, I now understand your confusion). And the suggestion was that this was not a (bad/offputting?) Statistics course but a course that "mythbusted" a range of subjects, somewhat like [[Every Major's Terrible]], that we catch just as Statistics in particular gets a page or so of short shrift about. [[Special:Contributions/172.70.85.73|172.70.85.73]] 23:01, 29 December 2021 (UTC) | "([https://www.explainxkcd.com/wiki/index.php?title=2560:_Confounding_Variables&diff=prev&oldid=223220 Why was the word "remit" used and why was it linked to Mythbusters? Both were unnecessarily confusing.])"... Well, "remit" ≈ "purpose" as I used it (Wiktionary, Noun section, item 1: "(chiefly Britain) Terms of reference; set of responsibilities; scope. quotations" - seeing that it's apparently British, and the <s>remit</s> scope of most of the verb forms, I now understand your confusion). And the suggestion was that this was not a (bad/offputting?) Statistics course but a course that "mythbusted" a range of subjects, somewhat like [[Every Major's Terrible]], that we catch just as Statistics in particular gets a page or so of short shrift about. [[Special:Contributions/172.70.85.73|172.70.85.73]] 23:01, 29 December 2021 (UTC) | ||
| + | |||
| + | Her argument is exceedingly weak. If you simply want to note a correlation, there's no need to control for any confounding variables. If, on the other hand, you want to prove a causative relationship, there is simply no way to do that by controlling for any set of potentially confounding variables - but contrary to her assertion, this doesn't mean that stats are a farce and the truth is unknowable, it just means that a causative relationship can only be established experimentally. To establish a causative relationship, you don't need to control for any confounding variables, you just randomize. Example in a clinical trial, patients are randomly assigned to the treatment group or the placebo group. There's no need to control for anything because random chance would distribute patients with any potential confounding variable throughout both groups. You use appropriate statistical significance tests to make sure that this effect of random chance is sufficient to be reasonably sure of the results, and you have the truth. The argument this individual is making is based on misunderstandings of statistical principles prevalent in popular culture. | ||
| + | [[Special:Contributions/172.68.174.150|172.68.174.150]] 18:46, 30 August 2023 (UTC) | ||
Revision as of 18:46, 30 August 2023
This is the earliest in the day that I can recall a comic being published in a long time. It's not even noon ET yet. Barmar (talk) 16:39, 27 December 2021 (UTC)
This explanation will not be complete until someone explains the title text. I assume controlling for the residual will lead to a null result, but I don't know statistics well enough to know. 172.70.110.171 17:10, 27 December 2021 (UTC)
"Stats are a farce and the truth is unknowable." She jests, but... 172.70.178.25 18:31, 27 December 2021 (UTC)
- Many people have made similar observations over the centuries [1] Seebert (talk) 16:31, 28 December 2021 (UTC)
- Stats provide answers, but not questions - that's what my professor used to say 141.101.104.14 12:04, 30 December 2021 (UTC)
"(Why was the word "remit" used and why was it linked to Mythbusters? Both were unnecessarily confusing.)"... Well, "remit" ≈ "purpose" as I used it (Wiktionary, Noun section, item 1: "(chiefly Britain) Terms of reference; set of responsibilities; scope. quotations" - seeing that it's apparently British, and the remit scope of most of the verb forms, I now understand your confusion). And the suggestion was that this was not a (bad/offputting?) Statistics course but a course that "mythbusted" a range of subjects, somewhat like Every Major's Terrible, that we catch just as Statistics in particular gets a page or so of short shrift about. 172.70.85.73 23:01, 29 December 2021 (UTC)
Her argument is exceedingly weak. If you simply want to note a correlation, there's no need to control for any confounding variables. If, on the other hand, you want to prove a causative relationship, there is simply no way to do that by controlling for any set of potentially confounding variables - but contrary to her assertion, this doesn't mean that stats are a farce and the truth is unknowable, it just means that a causative relationship can only be established experimentally. To establish a causative relationship, you don't need to control for any confounding variables, you just randomize. Example in a clinical trial, patients are randomly assigned to the treatment group or the placebo group. There's no need to control for anything because random chance would distribute patients with any potential confounding variable throughout both groups. You use appropriate statistical significance tests to make sure that this effect of random chance is sufficient to be reasonably sure of the results, and you have the truth. The argument this individual is making is based on misunderstandings of statistical principles prevalent in popular culture. 172.68.174.150 18:46, 30 August 2023 (UTC)
