5 ms·

Wow, bet they never thought of that. If only the researchers had thought to ask HN first.

by acheron 13d ago

clickety_clack 13d ago
Would you prefer that people accept claims uncritically? It’s a valid critique of the results.
- wvenable 13d ago
  If the commenter read the study and found that they did not, in fact, account for that then it would be valid to point it out here. Otherwise, it's just a waste of our time.
  - clickety_clack 13d ago
    By its fundamental design, an observational study cannot account for everything. That is the critique and it is a valid one.
    - wvenable 13d ago
      Most observational studies do in fact account for the first thing a random HN poster can come up with 5 seconds after reading the title. So there is very little value in such a comment.
    - j4yav 13d ago
      That's true, and it's also one of those factoids that everybody already knows but certain people can't help themselves from bringing up every time it's even tenuously relevant.
      - clickety_clack 12d ago
        It might be common sense if you work with statistics, but most people don’t, and the only way they would know these things is if someone says them. Regardless, it was the top comment so people clearly think it was valuable enough to vote for.
        j4yav 12d ago
        [dead]
        wvenable 12d ago
        The fact that it was the top comment only shows that people agreed or liked it, not that it was actually valuable, accurate, or useful. Popularity and value aren't the same thing, correlation is not causation, etc, etc...
    - jawilson2 12d ago
      This was published in Nature, I'm pretty sure the reviewers understand and account for that. HN and reasonably educated people always think this is some huge gotcha, second only to "CORRELATION != CAUSATION!!!!"
      - clickety_clack 12d ago
        Nature isn't an arbiter of truth, it's a publisher of papers. It's also meant to be read critically by people who see a paper like this and and think "interesting, but this is just an observational study, I'd like to see more research, maybe something with more controls before I believe this". Say what you want about the "correlation doesn't imply causation", but many people do not understand why that is. As a shorthand for "hey, you don't know the statistics behind this, so don't take the pretty picture at face value", it's pretty good.

Wow, bet they never thought of that. If only the researchers had thought to ask HN first.

by acheron 13d ago

Wow, bet they never thought of that. If only the researchers had thought to ask HN first.

clickety_clack 13d ago

Would you prefer that people accept claims uncritically? It’s a valid critique of the results.

wvenable 13d ago
If the commenter read the study and found that they did not, in fact, account for that then it would be valid to point it out here. Otherwise, it's just a waste of our time.
- clickety_clack 13d ago
  By its fundamental design, an observational study cannot account for everything. That is the critique and it is a valid one.
  - wvenable 13d ago
    Most observational studies do in fact account for the first thing a random HN poster can come up with 5 seconds after reading the title. So there is very little value in such a comment.
  - j4yav 13d ago
    That's true, and it's also one of those factoids that everybody already knows but certain people can't help themselves from bringing up every time it's even tenuously relevant.
    - clickety_clack 12d ago
      It might be common sense if you work with statistics, but most people don’t, and the only way they would know these things is if someone says them. Regardless, it was the top comment so people clearly think it was valuable enough to vote for.
      - j4yav 12d ago
        [dead]
      - wvenable 12d ago
        The fact that it was the top comment only shows that people agreed or liked it, not that it was actually valuable, accurate, or useful. Popularity and value aren't the same thing, correlation is not causation, etc, etc...
  - jawilson2 12d ago
    This was published in Nature, I'm pretty sure the reviewers understand and account for that. HN and reasonably educated people always think this is some huge gotcha, second only to "CORRELATION != CAUSATION!!!!"
    - clickety_clack 12d ago
      Nature isn't an arbiter of truth, it's a publisher of papers. It's also meant to be read critically by people who see a paper like this and and think "interesting, but this is just an observational study, I'd like to see more research, maybe something with more controls before I believe this". Say what you want about the "correlation doesn't imply causation", but many people do not understand why that is. As a shorthand for "hey, you don't know the statistics behind this, so don't take the pretty picture at face value", it's pretty good.