Re:The opposite of a shibboleth is a frisco
by dekhn on Tuesday January 02, 2024 @08:16PM
(#38849494)
I am an ex-scientist and I can confirm that scientists frequently say this. Normally it's what you say after you read a paper from your competitor.
Realistically, almost no modern research demonstrates causation; nearly all work is associational, ideally with a prepdonderance of supporting evidence and no counter-evidence (which merely means it hasn't been falsified. Now falsified- that's a work scientists rarely if ever use).
Re:The opposite of a shibboleth is a frisco
by TheCoelacanth on Tuesday January 02, 2024 @11:08PM
(#38850612)
It depends a lot on the field. In fields where you can ethically and cost effectively set up controlled experiments, demonstrating causation is pretty common. In fields where you can't, it's rare.
Re:The opposite of a shibboleth is a frisco
by dekhn on Tuesday January 02, 2024 @11:19PM
(#38850682)
I worked in biophysics with molecules and I don't think we considered even our most carefully run experiments as demonstrating causation. Even in physics nearly everything is presented as a probabilistic claim.
Re:The opposite of a shibboleth is a frisco
by RecycledEle on Tuesday January 02, 2024 @05:35PM
(#38848012)
If someone dies not say "Correlation does not imply causation" then they are a liberal arts major.
All scientists say "correlation does not imply causation."
Genuinely curious: What do real scientists say instead at the myriad of pop-science articles that superimpose two graphs and declare that jello cures laryngitis?