7+ Year Member
15+ Year Member
Aug 24, 2003
Visit site
  1. Pharmacy Student
Haha, check this out.

The scientific community is deeply divided on this matter. "It sure makes my job a lot easier." confided neuroscientist Thad Polk. "Those who criticize my work always point out that, although highly correlated, cerebral blood flow is not 'thought'. Now that we know correlation IS causal, I can solve that pesky mind-body problem and conclude that thinking is merely the dynamic movement of blood within cerebral tissue. This is going to make getting tenure a piece of cake!"

Anti-correlationist Travis Seymour is more cynical. "What about all the previous correlational results? Do they get grandfathered in? Like, the old stock market/hemline Pearson's rho is about 0.85. Does this mean dress lengths actually dictated the stock market, even though they did it at a time when correlation did not imply causation? And what about negative and marginally significant correlations? These questions must be answered before the scientific community will accept the results of the poll wholeheartedly. More research is definitely needed." :laugh: :laugh:


Senior Member
10+ Year Member
5+ Year Member
Jan 24, 2005
sweet, now I never have to say post hoc ergo propter hoc ever again. :D
This thread is more than 15 years old.

Your message may be considered spam for the following reasons:

  1. Your new thread title is very short, and likely is unhelpful.
  2. Your reply is very short and likely does not add anything to the thread.
  3. Your reply is very long and likely does not add anything to the thread.
  4. It is very likely that it does not need any further discussion and thus bumping it serves no purpose.
  5. Your message is mostly quotes or spoilers.
  6. Your reply has occurred very quickly after a previous reply and likely does not add anything to the thread.
  7. This thread is locked.
About the Ads