2026-07-27 07:15 UTC
@deedo@mastodon.nl
Exactly. Although, in general using correlation to "prove" (and by extension "disprove") something is a very slippery slope at best. I always use this example when I'm explaining correlation:
There is a perfect positive correlation between "being married" and "getting divorce", and even higher correlation between "being born" and "death", as you cannot have the latter without the former, and yet, neither means causality.
@juergen_hubert@mementomori.social
Replies (2)
-
@david_chisnall@infosec.exchange 2026-07-27 14:33
@Mehrad@fosstodon.org @deedo@mastodon.nl @juergen_hubert@mementomori.social Interestingly, the original meaning of 'prove' meant 'test'. Which is why you have sayings like 'the exception that proves the rule': it meant the exception that tested (and falsified) the rule.
-
@deedo@mastodon.nl 2026-07-27 07:21
@Mehrad@fosstodon.org @juergen_hubert@mementomori.social haha, I realized that and chose to stick with this wording anyway. But it's exactly this nuance and wording in probabilities instead of black and white exclamations! that gets misunderstood. I mean, "vaccines kill!¨ is so easily put. And science says: "Technically you are correct that in some cases ..."