Moderators: Magistrates, Prelates, Moderators General
It may have been the worst way to explain it, but I didn't even get that aspect of the joke until I came here. I was just cackling at the alt-text.gtkarber wrote:jasn: The joke is that you really can't be sure if the statistics class changed his opinion unless you perform an experiment with variable manipulation.
/worst way to explain the joke
gtkarber wrote:I didn't even make it first! I couldn't delete it before someone else posted, either--so now I look like that guy.
Jasn wrote:Is there a joke in this comic? If there is, I do not see it. I'm taking a sadistics class right now.
athelas wrote:EDIT: the burning-cheese thing is getting unfunny. Just sayin'.
russianspy1234 wrote:i actually very recently got into an argument about this in a chat. turns out, the actual statistical definition of "implies" is different from the day to day usage, and it does actually mean "proves", which is what my argument was, that it does imply causation, but doesnt prove it.
russianspy1234 wrote:i actually very recently got into an argument about this in a chat. turns out, the actual statistical definition of "implies" is different from the day to day usage, and it does actually mean "proves", which is what my argument was, that it does imply causation, but doesnt prove it.
phlip wrote:russianspy1234 wrote:i actually very recently got into an argument about this in a chat. turns out, the actual statistical definition of "implies" is different from the day to day usage, and it does actually mean "proves", which is what my argument was, that it does imply causation, but doesnt prove it.
Not just in statistics... "implies" has that definition in all of mathematics.
Strictly, the sentence "Correlation does not imply causation" is equivalent to "There exist scenarios where A and B are correlated, but A does not cause B." (Alternatively, "Correlation does imply causation" is equivalent to "In all situations where A is correlated to B, A causes B.")
[edit] sje: admittedly, the fact that your fake rants got very old quite a while ago and the fact that they're really not that funny are correlated, but that doesn't imply causation. But still.
Cynical Idealist wrote:Velict wrote:Good Jehova, there are cheesegraters on the blagotube!
This is, for some reason, one of the funniest things I've read today.
LuNatic wrote:phlip wrote:russianspy1234 wrote:i actually very recently got into an argument about this in a chat. turns out, the actual statistical definition of "implies" is different from the day to day usage, and it does actually mean "proves", which is what my argument was, that it does imply causation, but doesnt prove it.
Not just in statistics... "implies" has that definition in all of mathematics.
Strictly, the sentence "Correlation does not imply causation" is equivalent to "There exist scenarios where A and B are correlated, but A does not cause B." (Alternatively, "Correlation does imply causation" is equivalent to "In all situations where A is correlated to B, A causes B.")
Wait, how? Doesn't imply = implicit?
+===+===+=============+
| A | B | A implies B |
+===+===+=============+
| F | F | T |
| F | T | T |
| T | F | F |
| T | T | T |
+===+===+=============+
prometheus3737 wrote:This comic reminds me of the thoroughly well-proven fact that the decline of 18th century style pirate is the direct cause of global warming, as illustrated by this graph:
Return to Individual XKCD Comic Threads
Users browsing this forum: 7da4i6y0a, avocadoowl, BergZ, Brandnew, Eoink, gmalivuk, JudeMorrigan, malthrax, mscha, MSNbot Media, orion205, Pez Dispens3r, PolakoVoador, Syncfiebrinee, Whizbang and 56 guests