Talk:Spurious relationship

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Statistics, which collaborates to improve Wikipedia's coverage of statistics. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page.

Philosophy Portal

This article is within the scope of the WikiProject Philosophy, which collaborates on articles related to philosophy. To participate, you can edit this article or visit the project page for more details.

???

This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale.

Mid

This article has been rated as mid-importance on the importance scale.

Additional information:

Related task forces (core areas):
	Logic

I am appalled that this page has been listed on votes for deletion. It is a very nicely written -- even if stubby -- article on a topic of importance in scientific inference. Michael Hardy 01:35, 29 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Likewise, but not surprised, anymore. -- Cimon Avaro on a pogostick 01:56, Feb 29, 2004 (UTC)

Guys, don't you know in America the word "relationship" means something else? Doubtless, a relationship based only on ice cream is spurious, and hence the article was a tautology. Mikkalai 02:52, 29 Feb 2004 (UTC)

What is the difference between spurious variables and antecedent variables? I can't tell from the article. Robert Southworth 19:27, 29 Feb 2004 (UTC)

I can't tell either. I'm editing the article appropriately. --DAD 01:29, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC)

"Confounding variable" is redirected to this article, but "confounding factor" has its own stub article that contains essentially only the ice cream example and links to two other articles, one of which is this. Shouldn't confounding factor be redirected here also, and that stub be deleted? -- 65.24.92.175 14:47, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I say no: I came to this page looking for an explanation of confounding variables. Thankfully, I found the link to the confounding factor page, which gave me what I needed. Confounding variables are an important topic in experimental design, and simply redirecting the page here is misleading. I've redirected confounding variable to confounding factor, added the stats-stub tag to confounding factor, and added a mention of experimental design to it. -Kieran 09:26, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Error in this Article

Hey, this isn't right, could someone fix it? From the article:

> In practice, three conditions must be met in order to conclude that X causes Y, directly or indirectly:

> * X must precede Y

> * Y must not occur when X does not occur

> * Y must occur whenever X occurs

> Spurious relationships can often be identified by considering whether any of these three conditions have been violated.

> The final condition may be relaxed in the case of indirect causation.

Now rain (X) may cause me to stay in (Y); that is, I stay in whenever it rains, but I may stay in when it doesn't rain (because it may be snowing, for example). So clearly there are obvious cases when the second condition may be relaxed, rather than the third.

In fact, the example of the pistol shot causing the death of the man doesn't even work, as the guy could die from a metiorite, thus violating the second condition, or he could be kept alive by the doctor, thus violating the third.

The only condition that seems to be really relevant is the first.

So, what was actually meant here??

[edit] Combine "Spurious Relationship" and "Joint Effect"

I would agree that this should be combined with "Spurious Relationship", as this page only recites a different version (with a few extra comments) on the ice cream example mentioned in "Spurious Relationship: General Example". It might also work to change "General Example" to "Joint Effect", and insert the text from "Joint Effect" in its place.

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Joint_effect"

I took the step of deleting the redundant text in "joint effect" and redirecting to this entry. - Aug 28 2006

I removed the 'mergewith' tag, now the merge is complete. Terraxos 21:51, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Spurious correlation

Should this stub be merged here? A correlecation is a subtype of a relationship, I'd think.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk} 17:25, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

I caution merging these two articles. "Spurious relationship" is a specific term. I added the psychology aspect because when i was studying it i couldn't find it on the website. If they are merged i would want a search to identify the new page. as it did not for me