Philip C Mendelsohn wrote: > > On Tue, 18 Jul 2000 andy at theasis.com wrote: > > > > statistics *never* imply causality, nor guarantee outcomes. > > ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ > > That's not true ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ > > that is. > > I'm not going to argue the point. Look in any statistics book at your > convenience. What I said is provably correct, so I have no bones to pick > about it.~ I think the key word is `imply'. Unless your definition is different than mine, you can imply a lot of things, but you can't prove nearly as much. Of course, I'm weird, since I think `proof by induction' is roughly equivalent to `proof by implication'... -- _ _ _ _ _ ___ _ _ _ ___ _ _ __ Air conditioned / \/ \(_)| ' // ._\ / - \(_)/ ./| ' /(__ environment - Do not \_||_/|_||_|_\\___/ \_-_/|_|\__\|_|_\ __) open Windows. [ Mike Hicks | http://umn.edu/~hick0088/ | mailto:hick0088 at tc.umn.edu ] --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: tclug-list-unsubscribe at mn-linux.org For additional commands, e-mail: tclug-list-help at mn-linux.org