On 22 Sep 2006 at 15:08, Gerald Peterson wrote: > > Yes, I've noticed the tend among laypeople but also among psychologists, > journal editors, and of course statisticians who always seem to use > inappropriate causal language. <snip>
>Among psychologists,there may be a number of reasons. For > example, In some casesI think it is arrogance and over-confidence in > regression analyses that might statistically control for some > variables Actually, the reason why psychologists do it is simple. It's because it makes their research sexy (important, if you will). No one cares if smoking pot is associated with lower grades. Ah, but if you can proclaim that smoking pot _causes_ lower grades you get to enjoy instant fame for your research. Experimentalists know better, and in my experience, they almost always bury a disclaimer somewhere in their paper. But you rarely hear the disclaimer when they talk to the press. The real problem, I think, lies with the referees and editors who let authors off with a strong causal assertion coupled with a weasely disclaimer. If an author is going to be allowed to use the c-word, this should be accompanied by a prominent and meaningful discussion of the dangers of drawing a particular causal conclusion from correlational data. Stephen ----------------------------------------------------------------- Stephen L. Black, Ph.D. Department of Psychology Bishop's University e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2600 College St. Sherbrooke QC J1M 0C8 Canada Dept web page at http://www.ubishops.ca/ccc/div/soc/psy TIPS discussion list for psychology teachers at http://faculty.frostburg.edu/psyc/southerly/tips/index.htm ----------------------------------------------------------------------- --- To make changes to your subscription go to: http://acsun.frostburg.edu/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=tips&text_mode=0&lang=english
