The new forums will be named Coin Return (based on the most recent vote)! You can check on the status and timeline of the transition to the new forums here.
The Guiding Principles and New Rules document is now in effect.
No I thought it was bizarre as well how he just kind of dumped that link in.
But by eliminating a few of the more obvious biology only components, it could still be applied to explore a relationship between correlation and causation.
Sorry I just skimmed and noticed people bashing Hill. It is a really useful guideline though it does occasionally have to be modified for the specifics of what you are working on.
Yeah, there are a unique set of rules for Hill style arguments and it is a stretch to jam social complexities into that framework without being really careful.
Certainly you would remove components like dose-response, but I've applied modified Hills-Criteria when critiquing social science studies.
This discussion is pretty irrelevant though to the point psyck0 was trying to make in that: in certain situations, it is accurate to say correlation and causation is equal. I think we can all agree on that.
Ahahahaha great argument you have there. You respond to one of the greatest epidemiologists of all time creating a new criteria for determining causation in cases where experimental trials cannot adequately be run with "Hitler".
Seriously, Hill was a fucking genius. He revolutionised medical research. You don't get to just wave it away with "Hitler", you pompous goose.
I have no problem with having a part-time cop in schools. It's good outreach, it teaches kids what cops do and that they aren't all horrible people (hopefully, unless the cop sucks), and it's a decent authority figure. They shouldn't have to be there all the time, though- if school is that dangerous, you have a SERIOUS problem- and I don't think that they should be armed. Authority shouldn't come from behind a gun.
I'm sorry, which one of us used the "that's the same argument [someone bad] used" line first, Mr. Yourejustliketobacco?
Now, let's see the trend of your arguments:
Coincindence that the country with the most armed cops in schools and the biggest national obsession with guns has the most school shootings?
With that said, having armed cops in schools is NOT the only cause of America's problems.
I did not say that having guns in schools directly caused school shootings or stabbings. I didn't even imply that, and to say I did is moronic.
My point is that it seems, on the face of it, like a bad idea to be promoting authority through guns in schools when you are trying to teach kids that violence is bad and that they shouldn't bring guns to schools
I wasn't saying that having guns and police in schools is CAUSING everything that is bad
seems logical that it is contributing in some way and that correlation data (superficially) support that idea using some of the Hill criteria
I think that some of the correlation between violence and gun culture is probably causal
If you exercise your reading comprehension skills, you might find that those are pretty consistent statements. The first statement doesn't imply that I think having armed cops in schools caused the shootings, it implies that I think there is a culture of gun worship that is contributing to both, and in addition to that, that having armed cops in schools is further causing proliferation and strengthening of gun culture, as I clarify with later statements. So there is an element of causality but that isn't the entire picture. It's pretty fucking clear if you manage to stop going HONK HONK HONK.
If you exercise your reading comprehension skills, you might find that those are pretty consistent statements. The first statement doesn't imply that I think having armed cops in schools caused the shootings, it implies that I think there is a culture of gun worship that is contributing to both, and in addition to that, that having armed cops in schools is further causing proliferation and strengthening of gun culture, as I clarify with later statements. So there is an element of causality but that isn't the entire picture. It's pretty fucking clear if you manage to stop going HONK HONK HONK.
So, basically, you to make a negative statement that can't be disproved to hide behind when people point out your positive statement and innuendo is bullshit. What's next? Telling us that we should stop calling you racist because your support of the republican party is only partly due to a hatred of black people?
in certain situations, it is accurate to say correlation and causation is equal. I think we can all agree on that.
God I hope we can't agree on that. Unless "Certain situations" means "When strong evidence has been provided along side of statistical studies."
When you have two things (A and correlated, there are 4 possibilities.
1. Coincidence
2. A causes B
3. B causes A
4. Some third factor C causes both A and B.
You MUST discount all 3 other options before you can pick one and say it is true.
I agree in a medical trial, some of this is trivial. Most don't spend the time to disprove that a reduction in inflammation causes one to take an NSAID.
But you still must disprove that the belief that NSAIDs work caused a person to both take an NSAID and also caused the reduction in inflammation. Showing a treatment to be stronger than the Placebo effect is required in medical research.
Now, in a more complex situation, correlating 'cops in schools' with 'youth violence' without further evidence supports the position
'Cops' cause 'Violence'
Just as much as it supports
'Violence' causes "Cops"
If you exercise your reading comprehension skills, you might find that those are pretty consistent statements. The first statement doesn't imply that I think having armed cops in schools caused the shootings, it implies that I think there is a culture of gun worship that is contributing to both, and in addition to that, that having armed cops in schools is further causing proliferation and strengthening of gun culture, as I clarify with later statements. So there is an element of causality but that isn't the entire picture. It's pretty fucking clear if you manage to stop going HONK HONK HONK.
I really can't see how having an armed cop in schools encourages kids to engage in violence.
And the school shooting hysteria is incredibly overblown. The chances of a kid getting shot in school are incredibly low. It's up there with having your kid snatched off the street by a child molestor. Kids are probably in more danger from car accidents driving to and from school than they are of dying in a Columbine incident.
As for violent crime, it's dropping to a 50 year low in the US. But perceptions tend to lag in that area.
Aetian Jupiter - 41 Gunslinger - The Old Republic
Rigorous Scholarship
I've never seen strong evidence alongside statistical studies demonstrate that.
Listen, medical trials are great but they are not the only way to prove correlation. If you are actually interested, look up how case-control and cohort studies remove bias, confounding effects, and random error to create theories of causation.
There were two armed police officers in my school. I never interacted with them but they seemed amiable and none of the kids ever complained about having any trouble with them. In fact, the kids that interacted with them the most, the troublemakers, were the ones I often saw greeting the police officers in the hallway and not sarcastically.
But they didn't have any stupid policies they had to enforce like arresting kids for profanity or anything like that. They just escorted kids to detention when they were refusing to go, they broke up fights, and when the local PD sent a dog to do drug sniffing they would be directing the process. The only arrest I remember was when a student attacked a teacher. The teacher was an ex-Marine and ended up giving that kid quite a black eye, but charges were never pressed when the teacher learned that the kid was bipolar or something like that so he just got a lot of detention.
If you exercise your reading comprehension skills, you might find that those are pretty consistent statements. The first statement doesn't imply that I think having armed cops in schools caused the shootings, it implies that I think there is a culture of gun worship that is contributing to both, and in addition to that, that having armed cops in schools is further causing proliferation and strengthening of gun culture, as I clarify with later statements. So there is an element of causality but that isn't the entire picture. It's pretty fucking clear if you manage to stop going HONK HONK HONK.
I really can't see how having an armed cop in schools encourages kids to engage in violence.
And the school shooting hysteria is incredibly overblown. The chances of a kid getting shot in school are incredibly low. It's up there with having your kid snatched off the street by a child molestor. Kids are probably in more danger from car accidents driving to and from school than they are of dying in a Columbine incident.
As for violent crime, it's dropping to a 50 year low in the US. But perceptions tend to lag in that area.
At a guess I'd say because it's public recognition that this is a violent place, kind of them shapes how anecdotes are perceived. Kind of how "worse crime than the inner city? Closest thing I've seen to a crime is when some kids took John's bad and made him chase after it last week" becomes "It's as bad as the worst inner cities, it's been less than a week since the last mugging". If the former was after games, then the latter now has muggers armed with baseball bats and hockey sticks, or perhaps just "armed mugging".
Posts
No, it actually is on my bookmark bar.
This discussion is pretty irrelevant though to the point psyck0 was trying to make in that: in certain situations, it is accurate to say correlation and causation is equal. I think we can all agree on that.
I'm sorry, which one of us used the "that's the same argument [someone bad] used" line first, Mr. Yourejustliketobacco?
Now, let's see the trend of your arguments: Ow, my ass. I think I have whiplash.
So, basically, you to make a negative statement that can't be disproved to hide behind when people point out your positive statement and innuendo is bullshit. What's next? Telling us that we should stop calling you racist because your support of the republican party is only partly due to a hatred of black people?
God I hope we can't agree on that. Unless "Certain situations" means "When strong evidence has been provided along side of statistical studies."
When you have two things (A and
1. Coincidence
2. A causes B
3. B causes A
4. Some third factor C causes both A and B.
You MUST discount all 3 other options before you can pick one and say it is true.
I agree in a medical trial, some of this is trivial. Most don't spend the time to disprove that a reduction in inflammation causes one to take an NSAID.
But you still must disprove that the belief that NSAIDs work caused a person to both take an NSAID and also caused the reduction in inflammation. Showing a treatment to be stronger than the Placebo effect is required in medical research.
Now, in a more complex situation, correlating 'cops in schools' with 'youth violence' without further evidence supports the position
'Cops' cause 'Violence'
Just as much as it supports
'Violence' causes "Cops"
And the school shooting hysteria is incredibly overblown. The chances of a kid getting shot in school are incredibly low. It's up there with having your kid snatched off the street by a child molestor. Kids are probably in more danger from car accidents driving to and from school than they are of dying in a Columbine incident.
As for violent crime, it's dropping to a 50 year low in the US. But perceptions tend to lag in that area.
Rigorous Scholarship
Welcome to the field of epidemiology. I hope you enjoy your stay.
Listen, medical trials are great but they are not the only way to prove correlation. If you are actually interested, look up how case-control and cohort studies remove bias, confounding effects, and random error to create theories of causation.
But they didn't have any stupid policies they had to enforce like arresting kids for profanity or anything like that. They just escorted kids to detention when they were refusing to go, they broke up fights, and when the local PD sent a dog to do drug sniffing they would be directing the process. The only arrest I remember was when a student attacked a teacher. The teacher was an ex-Marine and ended up giving that kid quite a black eye, but charges were never pressed when the teacher learned that the kid was bipolar or something like that so he just got a lot of detention.
At a guess I'd say because it's public recognition that this is a violent place, kind of them shapes how anecdotes are perceived. Kind of how "worse crime than the inner city? Closest thing I've seen to a crime is when some kids took John's bad and made him chase after it last week" becomes "It's as bad as the worst inner cities, it's been less than a week since the last mugging". If the former was after games, then the latter now has muggers armed with baseball bats and hockey sticks, or perhaps just "armed mugging".