Jennifer

係...唔信你問煙草商...佢地好似有出錢做research 證明吸煙唔一定會引致癌症
煙盒上都係話 respiratory diseases，唔係 lung cancer...

[ 本帖最後由 Jennifer 於 2008-8-13 02:03 編輯 ]

prussianz

原帖由 口琴王 於 2008-8-11 22:01 發表


谁哦？

這邊就有個明顯的例子。

這邊 , [[[[[-would-b-]]]] = 這邊 [/-'-相] = himself

傻貓貓 .,;==^)



[ 本帖最後由 prussianz 於 2008-8-13 14:56 編輯 ]

抽刀斷水

原帖由 Jennifer 於 2008-8-13 02:02 發表
係...唔信你問煙草商...佢地好似有出錢做research 證明吸煙唔一定會引致癌症
煙盒上都係話 respiratory diseases，唔係 lung cancer...

煙草商絕不能讓醫學界「證實」吸煙是絕對致癌，否則煙草將成為毒品。

prussianz

原帖由 抽刀斷水 於 2008-8-13 09:58 發表

煙草商絕不能讓醫學界「證實」吸煙是絕對致癌，否則煙草將成為毒品。

as far as i am concerned , 煙草 = 毒品 , sorry i am a vegetarian

阿修羅

小弟朋友話響基督教會見好多人都有肝風過盛既現像！
面氣帶青黑，說話語氣較呆板等等，都係肝風過盛既表現！

dye

1)  Correlation does not = causation

It can also be factor C such as people who have cancer tend to change their believe in Christianity because it help!

Just because there are more patient in hospital, does the hospital is the source of sickness.

Above is a valid line of reasoning provided by CS Lewis.

To see wether he is right, we will need to see the change, if any, when people enter and leave the religion.  A special phenomenon of hosptital is that people tend to leave the hospital as a healthier person.  This is not applicable to religion as they claim that only those who are sick will leave.  

The other phenomenon is that people who is entering the hospital tends to get heathier. Now THIS, is observable.

---------------------------
2)  Factors, factors.  We do not need to find identical individual, but we will need to take factors away one at a time.  Such as smoking, age, sex, habit, diet, etc

We will need quite large a samples set to reach anything conclusive.

----------------
3) To dissect even further to see which ritual of religion causes cancer, we will need even further study in great detail.  It can be that seeing the cross causes cancer beause cross is made of cancer cauing material

Or perhaps being happy is the reason, and religion make people happy (again, a different type of reason C)

Maybe the baptism water is contaminated with radioactive material.
------------------------------------

For smoking causes cancer, it is quite conclusive as there is massive amount of data on the second point in the same direction.  If it is only a few anedote evidence, it cannot be very conclusive.

But how sure are we?  No quite.  Since you are studying econ, you already know, what is a cost analysis without benefit?  What is the benefit of smoking to balance out the risk? For the God damn Christian, the benefit is eternal life...

Jennifer

你去一般香港的辦公室/ 政府機關看看，那裡面氣帶青黑，說話語氣較呆板的人多的是，
他們不返教會可能肝風比返教會的人更大哦~~

Nomad

某程度上,政府機關跟教會兩者根本就是一樣吧(苦笑)
辦公室呢,不面氣帶青黑的人倒是比教會要多的(笑)

ssmctiny

weakest

"Correlation does not = causation"
---> I get this concept. However, what method is used to check that A cause B?? In your example:

"To see wether he is right, we will need to see the change, if any, when people enter and leave the religion.  A special phenomenon of hosptital is that people tend to leave the hospital as a healthier person.  This is not applicable to religion as they claim that only those who are sick will leave.  

The other phenomenon is that people who is entering the hospital tends to get heathier. Now THIS, is observable."

This is observable, but could it be interpreted as correlation also?


And back to the beginning question: "conclusive" means a certain hypothesis have a large enough sample that supports it?

Consider, if CS Lewis is right about Christianity serve like a hospital.

It will follow that those that join the religion will be 'healed' just like patients in hospital.

If we do not observe a correlation, we sort of know CS Lewis is incorrect.  For everything being equal, a causation should make two factor vary togather (inversely, or proportionally)

---------------------
I would suppose conclusive means that we have
1) Large enough random sample (minimal)
2) Have adjusted for all known factors (minimal)
3) Have tested for quite a number of known factors (preferable)
4) Make accurate prediction in the end (preferable)

and probably have others to be added depending on what is being concluded

Known cancer causing reason include:
Age  (It is just evolution within the body)
Diet (Eating smoked bacon resembling a charcoal every meal is just asking for it.)
Smoking (same as above)
Genetics (It is just evolution within the body)
Living under ultraviolet light (speed up the evolution!)
Medical history (Yes, virus play a role.)
Lifestyle (A person body has a natural defence against cancer, a couch potato is again, asking for it)

etc... and the list goes on and on.

weakest

謝賜教.

Then, can i say correlation (+ve or -ve) is the necessary condition for causation?

[ 本帖最後由 weakest 於 2008-8-19 02:27 編輯 ]

No need to teach la.  You are also teach me in economic.

I certainly believe correlation is neccessary for causation.  If you have an example that something is not correlated in any way, yet we are know they have causation, I will be glad to know and change.