Comments on: More Milk Please, Ermintrude! A Classic Decision Trap? http://timoelliott.com/blog/2009/02/more_milk_please_ermintrude_a_.html Timo Elliott's Business Analytics Blog Fri, 10 Feb 2012 13:24:00 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1 By: ESP and Business Analytics | Business Analytics http://timoelliott.com/blog/2009/02/more_milk_please_ermintrude_a_.html/comment-page-1#comment-6594 ESP and Business Analytics | Business Analytics Fri, 07 Jan 2011 09:20:09 +0000 http://192.220.58.236/blog/?p=133#comment-6594 [...] any relationship you find is a working hypothesis, to be validated through further analysis (e.g. correlation is not causation), and expert discussion (as with peer-reviewed science papers, the best way to deal with potential [...]

[...] any relationship you find is a working hypothesis, to be validated through further analysis (e.g. correlation is not causation), and expert discussion (as with peer-reviewed science papers, the best way to deal with potential [...]

]]> By: Neil Raden http://timoelliott.com/blog/2009/02/more_milk_please_ermintrude_a_.html/comment-page-1#comment-71 Neil Raden Tue, 03 Feb 2009 15:52:55 +0000 http://192.220.58.236/blog/?p=133#comment-71 Timo, I agree with you that there is a lot of frivolous drawing of conclusions from shaky data analysis. Thanks for raising this issue. I don't believe that any analysis of data can get past correlation to causation because you never know if there is one more variable out there you overlooked. In addition, you can only estimate bias, not eliminate it. When statistical analysis shows an overwhelming correlation between drunk driving and accidents, you can only assume causation, but if you're an ambulance driver, you can see it. Air traffic controllers won't be replaced by decision engines based on statistical models that have revealed the causation of accidents. The sloppy statistics have been raised to an art form in the medical industry border on scandalous. Numbers will get you only so far, but unless you can see it in vivo, it's still just an hypothesis. And about the competency centers - in my experience, they are not executed very well, the staff is rarely picked from the pool of A-list practitioners. It creates another cost center and bureaucracy. I'm not opposed to the idea, only the execution. I remember IBM pushing this idea 25 years ago as the "Information Center" using their proto-BI, -ETL and -Datamart tools APL, APL-DI and ADRS. Perhaps my opinion is colored by that experience. Neil Raden Timo,
I agree with you that there is a lot of frivolous drawing of conclusions from shaky data analysis. Thanks for raising this issue.
I don’t believe that any analysis of data can get past correlation to causation because you never know if there is one more variable out there you overlooked. In addition, you can only estimate bias, not eliminate it. When statistical analysis shows an overwhelming correlation between drunk driving and accidents, you can only assume causation, but if you’re an ambulance driver, you can see it. Air traffic controllers won’t be replaced by decision engines based on statistical models that have revealed the causation of accidents. The sloppy statistics have been raised to an art form in the medical industry border on scandalous. Numbers will get you only so far, but unless you can see it in vivo, it’s still just an hypothesis.
And about the competency centers – in my experience, they are not executed very well, the staff is rarely picked from the pool of A-list practitioners. It creates another cost center and bureaucracy. I’m not opposed to the idea, only the execution. I remember IBM pushing this idea 25 years ago as the “Information Center” using their proto-BI, -ETL and -Datamart tools APL, APL-DI and ADRS. Perhaps my opinion is colored by that experience.
Neil Raden

]]> By: David Meyer http://timoelliott.com/blog/2009/02/more_milk_please_ermintrude_a_.html/comment-page-1#comment-70 David Meyer Tue, 03 Feb 2009 15:27:36 +0000 http://192.220.58.236/blog/?p=133#comment-70 Great post. It drives me batty how often idiotic causal chains are "proven" by studies. Great post. It drives me batty how often idiotic causal chains are “proven” by studies.

]]>