News for hackers. Stuff that matters.
Re:More green spaces linked to slower biological aging by LatteLazy on Friday July 07, 2023 @09:13AM (#36631242)
No, It doesn't. Because it does not show causation. We either prove causation or it's worthless.
Re:More green spaces linked to slower biological aging by ethanbond on Friday July 07, 2023 @01:11PM (#36634926)
That’s how science works bud. Correlation is really all we ever have for anything and you don’t leap from “no data” to “confident in causation” without miles and miles of “just correlative evidence of varying quality.”

And of course even once you get to high enough conviction to call it causation, it’s still liable to be overturned and to reveal itself as a mere correlation nonetheless!

Humans have never once “proved causation” of even a single phenomenon ever.

Re:More green spaces linked to slower biological aging by baanlox on Saturday July 08, 2023 @09:38AM (#36644275)
Not to mention how does one control the variables for lifespan and "green spaces".

This is a straight up pseudoscience and in its purest form.

It is practically intellectual fraud.

Re:More green spaces linked to slower biological aging by 10g1k on Sunday July 09, 2023 @07:24PM (#36660141)
Not at all. That's not how science works. A huge percentage of rigorous scientific studies are specifically showing correlations between things.

"Correlation doesn't equal causation!" cried the internerds.

It doesn't need to. If you've got a set (P) of N people who consume substance X, and N people (Q) who did not consume substance X, and 100% of set P died within half an hour of that act, and 100% of Q are still happy little dandelions, that is an entirely valid scientific finding, and an entirely sufficient reason to stop the supply of substance X.