Science Memes

13882 readers

2011 users here now

Welcome to c/science_memes @ Mander.xyz!

A place for majestic STEMLORD peacocking, as well as memes about the realities of working in a lab.

Rules

Don't throw mud. Behave like an intellectual and remember the human.
Keep it rooted (on topic).
No spam.
Infographics welcome, get schooled.

This is a science community. We use the Dawkins definition of meme.

Research Committee

[email protected]

Other Mander Communities

Science and Research

Biology and Life Sciences

Physical Sciences

Humanities and Social Sciences

Practical and Applied Sciences

Memes

Miscellaneous

founded 2 years ago

MODERATORS

[email protected]

1127

Not the same (gregtech.eu)

submitted 1 month ago by [email protected] to c/[email protected]

45 comments fedilink hide all child comments

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] [email protected] 29 points 1 month ago (4 children)

I like the meme, but I don't think it actually works. The implication here is that there's a correlation between confusing correlation with causation and dying. But there isn't such a correlation. You are statistically equally likely to die either way

[–] [email protected] 19 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (1 children)

~~THATS THE JOKE~~

I see the confusion now. It’s evident in the thread below. Carry on.

[–] [email protected] 14 points 1 month ago (2 children)

No, it's not. The joke is that there is a correlation, but that actually correlation doesn't mean causation. But here we have a situation where there is neither correlation nor causation.

The problem is that the joke suggests that correlation is when A -> B (or at least it appears as such). Implication (in formal logic) is not the same as correlation.

[–] [email protected] 13 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (2 children)

Sorry to get mathematical..

P(A∣B)=P(A) iff

P(B∣A)=P(B) iff

P(A∩B)=P(A)P(B)

->𝐴 and 𝐵 are uncorrelated or independent.

There is no correlation with events with probability 1

[–] [email protected] 6 points 1 month ago

isn't that just Bayesian apologist propaganda?
*jumps in an unlabelled Frequentist van* "Floor it!"

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 month ago

Don't even need to bring probability into this. Death is certain, and correlation requires variance.

[–] [email protected] 6 points 1 month ago

Yup.

If the rate of dying is 100% for all humans.

Then the rate of dying for both humans who confuse correlation and causation and those who don’t is 100%. Hence there is no correlation between the confusion and dying. So no one is confusing correlation or causation, because neither are present.

[–] RedditRefugee69 10 points 1 month ago

This is why you never check the comments on a joke you initially thought was funny.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 1 month ago

You are statistically equally likely to die either way

That just adds an additional layer to the joke without undermining the intended punchline about people confusing the two.