Reply to comment
Correlation != Causation, and other bad research
September 27, 2006 by Anonymous, 3 years 6 weeks ago
Comment id: 14788
Reply
About us
Science Blog was started in August 2002. It lives, breathes and eats press releases from research organizations around the globe. Most of what you read here are press releases from the outfits named in the stories themselves. Got a news story you think belongs here? Let's talk. The other half of the equation is blog posts from readers like you. So if you have an interest in science, please register and join others like you in an ongoing, vibrant dialog about what makes the world tick. Meantime, please take a minute to read our Privacy Policy and Site Disclaimer.Recommended
Andrew Sullivan Dan Sullivan Doug Arellanes Emmanuelle Richard Faith Sullivan Fred Bortz Heather Havrilesky Henry Copeland Kate Sullivan Ken Layne lagreenbean.com LAist.com Maggie Sullivan Matt Welch NewYorkology Opinion L.A. Ron Kaye Slashdot Steve Elzer & Family TheNewsroom.org Thor Garcia Tony Pierce Wonkette OlderThanks CNET for naming Science Blog one of your Blog 100!
"The study, although preliminary in its parent-reported assessment of birth outcomes and small numbers of reported cases"
Translation: Despite the weak scientific grounding of this study, we have decided to publish it.
Self reporting has long been held the weakest method of collecting reliable data. Add that to a small data sample and what you have here is no more accurate than if you'd plugged in a computer and generated your results ad hoc.
Let's however assume the numbers are correct. Let me paint a more likely picture. Painters tend to be poor and the poor tend to have low birthweight babies.