Re: Clamping baby's cord - is baby still breathing through it?

From: P Harris (patberto_at_frontiernet.net)
Date: 06/20/04 

Date: 20 Jun 2004 13:33:46 -0700

Mxsmanic <mxsmanic@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:<oq59d0p6pgu1cqktml4d5k3sp7m17q6k3c@4ax.com>...
> P Harris writes:
>
> > LOL. You don't mean inconclusive, you mean "well phooey, I choose to
> > ignore these studies because they do not happen to support my
> > arguement" :-D
>
> No, I mean inconclusive. They fail to show cause and effect.
> Correlation is not causation

Oh, one last try, not because I think you're *interested* but in the
cause of general public education for anyone else still foolish enough
to be reading this thread...

You have a most peculiar (and completely unfulfillable in the real
world) expectation about what should, or in fact CAN, constitute
evidence about something.

Correlation between 2 phenomena is all that can EVER be shown. Ever,
anywhere, in any study, in any field of life. It is not possible, from
a philosophical standpoint even, to prove that ANYTHING truly causes
ANYTHING else.

Don't believe me? Look: when you hit me on the head with a stick I
feel a pain at the moment of impact and a bruise comes up at that site
later on, that *could* just be coincidence. You can't PROVE that the
whack with the stick caused those effects. Or there are a whole bunch
of various alternative explanations possible. Maybe the pain and
bruise were about to occur and psychically drew you to smack the stick
there, maybe some other mysterious force caused not only the pain and
bruise but also put the idea in your head to hit me with the stick. It
is *possible*.

Of course, only a nutcase would actually argue that the whack with the
stick *didn't* cause the pain and bruise:-P But we only feel that way
because it's a very consistant correlation that is explained well by
theories that (in turn) have a lot more [still just correlative]
evidence behind them than do the alternative theories. We have
well-supported and very accurately-predictive theories that describe
the forces imparted by a swung stick, well-supported and
accurately-predictive theories that describe the mechanical reactions
of skin and nerves to impacts buffered by various degrees of
cushioning, etcetera. Whereas nobody has yet made much progress
constructing accurately-predictive correlatively-supported theories
about imminent pain sucking sticks towards itself, or Mysterious
Forces exerting mind control, or suchlike. So as a conversational and
mental convenience, we say "hitting me caused the pain and bruise".
But we still haven't proven that.... it's still "only" a bunch of
correlative data.

In fact you will perhaps be depressed to discover ;-) that is
impossible to prove that such a thing as causation even EXISTS! We all
*assume* that causation is real, sure, because otherwise daily life
would be awful bewildering and difficult, and heck maybe there really
*is* such a thing as causation, who knows, but we will never know for
sure or be able to *prove* that it exists.

So, my suggestion would be, deal with it. Not by spouting sophomoric
catchphrases like 'correlation doesn't prove causation', but by
actually *thinking* it and coming to terms with the way this world
works :->

> I mean, really... have you even READ the studies?
>
> I read the abstracts. Unless the abstracts are deliberately fraudulent,
> that is sufficient to know that they have the flaws described above.

Well, ooooookaaaay.... but then, if "not proving causation" is The
Flaw you're talking about, then why on earth would you bother reading
any part of ANY study on anything, since nobody will *ever* be able to
demonstrate anything more than correlations. I could tell you "Hey, I
did a study on the effects of-" and you could interrupt me right there
and reply with absolute accuracy "Ah, but you haven't proven causation
there <shrug>". Save yourself a lot of effort that way, too :->

Though if that is your attitude, then you are dismissing wholesale the
very concepts of science or evidence or judging the world on the basis
of observable phenomena. Which I guess you can if you want but don't
expect it to lead to any sort of sensible conversations with anyone.

Giving up now because I think this has been more than enough 'public
service announcement' and I can see that you are merely interested in
lazy*-lawyering-in-the-support-of-an-unchallengable-belief, not
THINKING,

       *-I say "lazy" because I continue to be astonished that you
have not
          brought up the fact that there is reason to believe that in
at
          least *some* cases, very late cord clamping can indeed be
harmful
          to the newborn by overloading the system with red blood
cells whose
          later breakdown (in the body's attempt to achieve a more
balanced
          state) can cause serious jaundice. I do not know how
predictably
          this occurs, nor how often, nor anything like that, but it
is probably
          the most rational i.e. evidence-based argument for early
cord
          clamping that one can muster. You haven't mentioned it at
all.
          Go figure. <shrug>
          
Pat
due July 21 and looking forward to the opportunity to increase by one
the number of people in the world who're interested in
logical/critical thinking

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Information-Knowledge Holographic Principle
    ... their real quarrel is not with me but with Causation. ... Having heard that non-spurious correlation is Causation, ... But they tend to get thrown for a loop when asked what is physics ... Everybody, I think, would agree that physics and mathematics intuition ...
    (sci.physics)
  • Re: Research hounds needed
    ... >That's true, Kurt, but it's a question of definition, isn't it? ... >instance, aspartame, that it's only carcinogenic in very large doses ... that correlation is not causation. ...
    (misc.writing)
  • Quantum Gravity 221.0: Schrodinger-Riccati Relationships and Causation
    ... anything in Causation other than Correlation or "contiguity". ... Hume is not generally considered today as the "last word" on Causation ... This does NOT apply to cases where event A clearly precedes event B in ...
    (sci.physics)
  • Re: Some quotes for RH
    ... What you mean is that *you* only use a correlation when it ... "From Association to Causation: ... History of Statistics", Statistical Science, vol 14, no.3, pp 243-258, ... As Hume pointed out causation cannot be demonstrated. ...
    (uk.sport.cricket)
  • Persistent front tooth pain
    ... I've got pain in one of my top front anterior teeth. ... but I've noticed a correlation with my teeth shifting, ...
    (sci.med.dentistry)