haveandare
Registered User
It's with regard to statistical significance. In sciences such as chemistry and physics, results can be replicated in experiments.
When dealing with fluid results, such as in psychology or behavioral finance, the results aren't black or white, so it is measured in terms of correlations rather than causation, as causation cannot be proven when results can't be replicated on a 1:1 scale so it cannot be claimed as fact or a direct cause.
If you ever come across a scatter plot graph, the results are always in terms of correlations.
Yes, I understand that, but the idea can also be used far more simply to illustrate the effects of outside factors in a relationship that appears to be causal. Ice cream sales increase with murder rates. Ice cream doesn't cause murder though, those numbers are correlated because of another factor, weather, which affects them both. Ice cream sales increase with high temperatures, as do murders.
I don't want to go too OT, so I'll apply it to the post before. You suggested that the 11-12 team didn't have predatory hits thrown against them because they were tougher. They were tougher and didn't have predatory hits against them, but I'd argue that there's no causal relationship between the two. To support that point, I'd say look at the Bruins, who are by far the toughest, meanest team, and who also happen to be the victims of predatory hits more often than most other teams. Is there an outside factor that is obscured here? Probably not, at least not one that effects both of the others. I think which teams get hits like that and which don't is almost completely luck.
Last edited: