Re:Study Links Uber and Lyft to Increase in U.S. Traffic Deaths
by PioNono on Sunday October 28, 2018 @09:25AM
(#18320481)
Also, as the number of random variables increases, so to does the probability that some will be correlated just by chance. Pure noise.
Can’t post the reference right now, but the author Nassim Taleb has either a paper or blog post that shows this neatly using random matrices.
Re:Study Links Uber and Lyft to Increase in U.S. Traffic Deaths
by devonkim on Sunday October 28, 2018 @09:24AM
(#18320478)
I try to make this healthy skepticism / criticism a bit more succinct for laymen by linking to spurious correlations http://tylervigen.com/spurious-correlations
Re:Study Links Uber and Lyft to Increase in U.S. Traffic Deaths
by abathur on Sunday October 28, 2018 @11:54AM
(#18321171)
I see a lot of evidence that "thinking right" is astoundingly hard.
But I don't see very many statements from real humans of any field, background, or level of intelligence/education that acknowledge the enormity of the challenge.
I'm not sure it's "possible", but I think we're profoundly suffering for the lack of an open-ended, recursive knowledge-production process more efficient than what we've left up to the emergent behavior of a chaotic system.
Re:Study Links Uber and Lyft to Increase in U.S. Traffic Deaths
by sitkack on Sunday October 28, 2018 @02:53PM
(#18322221)
The Scientific Method can't be something we just learn and file away. Method means it is being applied, we constantly need to practice and study in its application. It is a way of being, not a fact.
Edit: There's also the possibility of spurious correlations, as mentioned in the comments below.