| You can't try to refute only some of my points and not others. I meant to say your example of course implied a cause-effect relationship, since you added the word 'cause' to it. (of course it wasn't a cause-effect relationship, do you think I am stupid?) >> My dried gourd treatment "predicts" that the cold sufferer will get better -- always. If your treatment is indeed correlated with a cold sufferer getting better, significantly enough, then yes, your treatment does in fact predicts it, even though it might not have been the cure. This is consistent with the definition of prediction being only related to correlation. >> Rain is a predictor for bumper crops, but bumper crops are not a predictor for rain. Teenage driving is a predictor for car crashes, but car crashes are not a predictor for teenage driving. That is correct; since bumper crops were only aided by rain if factors X1, Y1 are true, bumper crops are not a predictor of past rain unless X1, Y1 is true. Car crashes are correlated with teenage driving if factors X2, Y2 are true, car crashes are not a predictor of teenage driving unless X2, Y2 is true. X1, Y1 = (Crops are water dependent, crops were not also thoroughly irrigated by other means) X2, Y2 = (Teenager was intoxicated, teenager riding in car with more than 3 other members, all male) >> But the marijuana use did not predict the IQ drop, it was only correlated with it, and the researchers included this fact in their article. Yes it did, correlation means you can use the statistics to predict it, even if it wasn't the cause. Predict means correlation, and correlation means what you think correlation means. You have the meaning of predict wrong. It has as much to do with causation as correlation has. i.e not much (though some nonetheless, since if there is a causation it is likely to be correlated). "In statistics, prediction is a part of statistical inference. One particular approach to such inference is known as predictive inference, but the prediction can be undertaken within any of the several approaches to statistical inference. Indeed, one description of statistics is that it provides a means of transferring knowledge about a sample of a population to the whole population, and to other related populations, which is not the same as prediction over time." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prediction#Statistics If you are talking about prediction and correlation in the same sentence, you are in the realm statistics and therefore should abide by its use of language. You also did not address my two examples of use of predict in laymen sentences showing the word "predict" did not have anything to do with causation. >> "to declare or tell in advance; prophesy; foretell: to predict the weather; to predict the fall of a civilization." >> "to declare or indicate in advance; especially : foretell on the basis of observation, experience, or scientific reason" Neither of those definitions have any semblance of implying causation. Observation, experience, or scientific reason can all be instances of correlation. |
Of course I can. I chose only those points where your logical errors were most obvious.
> If your treatment is indeed correlated with a cold sufferer getting better, significantly enough, then yes, your treatment does in fact predicts it, even though it might not have been the cure. This is consistent with the definition of prediction being only related to correlation.
No, that is false. Shall I list the definitions for "predict" again, or will you read them again on your own?
> You also did not address my two examples of use of predict in laymen sentences showing the word "predict" did not have anything to do with causation.
You quoted some laymen who suited your purpose, while I listed the dictionary definitions for the word, the definitions that show that "predict" means to assert an effect based on a cause.
> Neither of those definitions have any semblance of implying causation.
Oh, really?
"to declare or indicate in advance; especially : foretell on the basis of observation, experience, or scientific reason"
A prediction is therefore the use of observations of A to predict B, to show a cause-effect relationship. I see the disappearance of the middle class (A), and on that basis I predict the fall of civilization (B). I see gathering clouds (A), and on that basis I predict rain (B) -- and puddles (C).
> Observation, experience, or scientific reason can all be instances of correlation.
Yes, but it's a false analogy with no bearing on this topic. A prediction forges a link between an observation (A) and an outcome (B). It assumes a cause-effect relationship, one that may not be real, but a word isn't responsible for how people misuse it.
> Indeed, one description of statistics is that it provides a means of transferring knowledge about a sample of a population to the whole population
Yes -- an observation of a small sample (A) is used as the basis for a prediction about the population as a whole (B). Also, remember that "prediction" commonly refers to an assertion about the future (B) based on present observations (A).
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/predict
"(Verb) to foretell the future; make a prediction."
> Yes it did, correlation means you can use the statistics to predict it, even if it wasn't the cause.
Nonsense. Marijuana use doesn't predict an IQ drop, the study doesn't support that prediction, as the authors were careful to point out, and as the journalists were at pains to ignore.
The marijuana use, and the IQ drop, are only correlated -- one does not predict the other.