The way in which you formulate responses tends to go a long way in determining the reaction you will get. Disagreeing with people is fine and good, disparaging them for lacking common sense or being foolish is generally not helpful and shows either a high level of immaturity or a profound lack of understanding of effective human communication.
Here is a quick rewrite of the snarkiest bit of the post that I think is not only drastically more civil but just as effective:
"I fear the reasoning here is incorrect as it conflates correlation with causation. Being too hasty in using this conclusion with machine learning would be a mistake."
I know there is a segment here that doesn't believe tone/communication style should matter, that it is, or should be, entirely about the underlying verisimilitude of their statements; unfortunately, that is not how 99% of human beings actually operate. So while you are free to rail against reality it will make you drastically less effective than you might otherwise be.
You are right Ryan. I must admit that I'm not very effective at human communication. It's not my competence. I'm much more effective with computers and logical reasoning.
To my defense, I could say that English is not my mother language and that the conflation of correlation with causation error, as you say, is a source of strong irritation to me. ;)
> Disagreeing with people is fine and good, disparaging them for lacking common sense or being foolish
Okay, but first, locate and circle the words you have just assigned to me in my original post. What? Can't find those words? Know the expression "straw man"?
My response was really meant to be addressed to chmike, I put it as a response to your post only because you claimed, like so many others here do, that all that matters are facts not "authority" (which you do call out) or "tone/style", which you don't specifically call out but is also a classic theme in these kind of discussions. Your response does fall squarely under the umbrella of my original advice though, I am not sure if the irony was intended or not. Your accusation of use of a straw man seems to also imply you view this as a debate instead of a discussion, which is sad but not uncommon.
> only because you claimed, like so many others here do, that all that matters are facts not "authority"
I ... never ... said .. any ... such ... thing.
Circle the words on the screen in front of you, where I ever uttered these words, anywhere, on God's green Earth.
You need to start reading what people say, not what your overactive imagination believes they said.
> ... seems to also imply you view this as a debate instead of a discussion ...
When someone invents a position to conveniently argue against, of course it's a debate -- a debate between fantasy and reality.
Notice how I have in each and every case replied directly to your words, which I quote in full. Notice how you don't have time to check in with reality before ascending your soapbox.
Can you then perhaps elaborate how else we should take this quote from you:
> I suggest that you resist posting this kind of inquiry in a scientific discussion. In science, only evidence counts, not authority or expertise. In science, the quality of evidence is all that matters, not its source.
As well as this in your reply to me:
> The bottom line in science, and in any scientific discussion, is that authority and expertise are never important. The greatest amount of scientific eminence is trumped by the smallest amount of scientific evidence.
Of course you might argue that this is not a "scientific discussion", but that would make both of these messages meaningless or intentionally obtuse in the context they were posted.
Here is a quick rewrite of the snarkiest bit of the post that I think is not only drastically more civil but just as effective:
"I fear the reasoning here is incorrect as it conflates correlation with causation. Being too hasty in using this conclusion with machine learning would be a mistake."
I know there is a segment here that doesn't believe tone/communication style should matter, that it is, or should be, entirely about the underlying verisimilitude of their statements; unfortunately, that is not how 99% of human beings actually operate. So while you are free to rail against reality it will make you drastically less effective than you might otherwise be.