I used to think that correlation implied causation. Then I took a statistics course, and now I don't think that anymore.
Sounds like I learned something in that course, right?
Maybe.
First, I didn’t say “statistics specialist”. I said “statistics professor”. Second, I corrected this person and they said it’s still useless.
THIS IS WHAT’S WRONG WITH SOCIETY. People refuse to evaluate their beliefs, especially with science.
*I made a video on TikTok analyzing this article: A Longitudinal Cohort Study of Emergency Room Utilization Following Mifepristone Chemical and Surgical Abortions, 1999–2015*
According to my friends in accounting, philosophy, and mathematics, stats is probably the hardest class they ever took. If mathematics and philosophy majors are saying something is mentally challenging, I'm taking their word for it.
I majored in CS and stats is absolutely the hardest class I took, partially due to the professor being horrible. The worst part is, I may not have learned as much as I should have, but learned enough to know the majority of ways people on Reddit use statistics to argue is BS. They only consider stats that agree with their worldview, and if they don’t agree, call the stat biased with no evidence as to how.
These are people that bought “women make 77% of what men make” hook line and sinker without asking why, and when showed why, they ignore the reason in favor of their political interpretation
Well, even if you *were* a stats specialist, it may not be an exact analogy, but I see "statistics specialist" and I think "data analyst." Which is far from a useless skill.
(I suppose you could say a data analyst is a type of stats specialist, at least.)
So, one very good and uncontroversial use of medical statistics is to test which treatments are effective against various cancers, and provide robust evidence, and in truth, if you want to get employment as a mathematics major, doing some statistics is probably the math of least resistance (STEM being very obviously applicable just in general). This is more likely cognative dissonance than anything else, but if you think using science to identify cancer treatments uselss, well you might want to reconsider your views (or just learn some statistics); just saying.
With anti-science views like this, what silly claims will come next? Claiming life starts at birth? Flat-earth views? Saying that climate change causes 5G? Arguing that crystals are a good contraceptive? I could go on, but I mean, I'm going to laugh at this, no matter who says it (obligatory note that most pro-choicers would agree this is a seriously dumb view)...
“Statistics are useless when they don’t support my point of view”
I used to think that correlation implied causation. Then I took a statistics course, and now I don't think that anymore. Sounds like I learned something in that course, right? Maybe.
First, I didn’t say “statistics specialist”. I said “statistics professor”. Second, I corrected this person and they said it’s still useless. THIS IS WHAT’S WRONG WITH SOCIETY. People refuse to evaluate their beliefs, especially with science. *I made a video on TikTok analyzing this article: A Longitudinal Cohort Study of Emergency Room Utilization Following Mifepristone Chemical and Surgical Abortions, 1999–2015*
According to my friends in accounting, philosophy, and mathematics, stats is probably the hardest class they ever took. If mathematics and philosophy majors are saying something is mentally challenging, I'm taking their word for it.
I majored in CS and stats is absolutely the hardest class I took, partially due to the professor being horrible. The worst part is, I may not have learned as much as I should have, but learned enough to know the majority of ways people on Reddit use statistics to argue is BS. They only consider stats that agree with their worldview, and if they don’t agree, call the stat biased with no evidence as to how. These are people that bought “women make 77% of what men make” hook line and sinker without asking why, and when showed why, they ignore the reason in favor of their political interpretation
Majoring in stats. Couldn't agree more :)
Well, even if you *were* a stats specialist, it may not be an exact analogy, but I see "statistics specialist" and I think "data analyst." Which is far from a useless skill. (I suppose you could say a data analyst is a type of stats specialist, at least.)
The truth and facts are useless to them. Their agenda is deception.
So, one very good and uncontroversial use of medical statistics is to test which treatments are effective against various cancers, and provide robust evidence, and in truth, if you want to get employment as a mathematics major, doing some statistics is probably the math of least resistance (STEM being very obviously applicable just in general). This is more likely cognative dissonance than anything else, but if you think using science to identify cancer treatments uselss, well you might want to reconsider your views (or just learn some statistics); just saying. With anti-science views like this, what silly claims will come next? Claiming life starts at birth? Flat-earth views? Saying that climate change causes 5G? Arguing that crystals are a good contraceptive? I could go on, but I mean, I'm going to laugh at this, no matter who says it (obligatory note that most pro-choicers would agree this is a seriously dumb view)...