| < [1] [2] 3 |
原帖由 口琴王 於 2008-8-11 22:01 發表 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 ] | |
原帖由 Jennifer 於 2008-8-13 02:02 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。  | |
原帖由 抽刀斷水 於 2008-8-13 09:58 發表 as far as i am concerned , 煙草 = 毒品 , sorry i am a vegetarian | |
面氣帶青黑，說話語氣較呆板等等，都係肝風過盛既表現！ | |
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... | |
他們不返教會可能肝風比返教會的人更大哦~~ | |
辦公室呢,不面氣帶青黑的人倒是比教會要多的(笑) | |
 | |
---> 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? | |
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 | |
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. | |
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 ] | |
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. |
| < [1] [2] 3 |
