« Challenges with sports analytics | Main | I don't like 401(k) either »


Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.


I do love your posts, not least for the potential for unintended humour.

While there are some studies (most of it of excretable quality

Did you mean execrable?
I agree that many of the fluff science pieces fail to understand that correlation ≠ causation and are therefore only fit to be excreted ☺


"This means none of those items are proven. They are just theories."

No. This means those are hypothesis, not theories.


DrBazUK: Corrected; I suppose maybe I should use both :)

Jens: I'm using "theory" in the vernacular, definition 5 as opposed to 2 on Wiktionary. But I get your point.


Rule number 1 in statistics should be "The further away from being able to show effective randomisation the murkier the results." I should ask for a research grant that involves either giving people a dog and dog food or equivalent money for a few years and we could prove this nicely. I wonder if I could then get a dog on my medical insurance if that was shown to make me healthier.

The comments to this entry are closed.

Get new posts by email:
Kaiser Fung. Business analytics and data visualization expert. Author and Speaker.
Visit my website. Follow my Twitter. See my articles at Daily Beast, 538, HBR, Wired.

See my Youtube and Flickr.


  • only in Big Data
Numbers Rule Your World:
Amazon - Barnes&Noble

Amazon - Barnes&Noble

Junk Charts Blog

Link to junkcharts

Graphics design by Amanda Lee

Next Events

Jan: 10 NYPL Data Science Careers Talk, New York, NY

Past Events

Aug: 15 NYPL Analytics Resume Review Workshop, New York, NY

Apr: 2 Data Visualization Seminar, Pasadena, CA

Mar: 30 ASA DataFest, New York, NY

See more here

Principal Analytics Prep

Link to Principal Analytics Prep