SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
In 1990, about 8 percent of the US population had no religious preference but by 2010, this percentage had more than doubled to 18 percent. That's a difference of about 25 million people, all of whom have somehow lost their religion. Now MIT Technology Review reports that Allen Downey, a computer scientist at the Olin College of Engineering in Massachusetts, has analyzed the data in detail and says that the dramatic drop in religious affiliation is the result of several factors but about 25 percent of the drop is due to the rise of the Internet. Downey concludes that the increase in Internet use in the last two decades has caused a significant drop in religious affiliation: for moderate use (2 or more hours per week) the odds ratio is 0.82. For heavier use (7 or more hours per week) the odds ratio is 0.58.
What Downey has found is a correlation and any statistician will tell you that correlations do not imply causation. But that does not mean that it is impossible to draw conclusions from correlations, only that they must be properly guarded. "Correlation does provide evidence in favor of causation, especially when we can eliminate alternative explanations or have reason to believe that they are less likely," says Downey. It's straightforward to imagine how spending time on the Internet can lead to religious disaffiliation. "For people living in homogeneous communities, the Internet provides opportunities to find information about people of other religions (and none), and to interact with them personally," says Downey. "Conversely, it is harder (but not impossible) to imagine plausible reasons why disaffiliation might cause increased Internet use."
There is another possibility: that a third unidentified factor causes both increased Internet use and religious disaffiliation. But Downey discounts this possibility. "We have controlled for most of the obvious candidates, including income, education, socioeconomic status, and rural/urban environments. (PDF)" If this third factor exists, it must have specific characteristics. It would have to be something new that was increasing in prevalence during the 1990s and 2000s, just like the Internet. "It is hard to imagine what that factor might be."
(Score: 5, Informative) by DeathMonkey on Thursday April 10 2014, @03:56PM
Correlation absolutely implies causation. It just does not prove it.
From Merriam Webster:
Imply:
1. to indicate or suggest without being explicitly stated: His words implied a lack of faith.
(Score: 2) by MrGuy on Thursday April 10 2014, @04:14PM
Right. Because of the internet.
(Score: 5, Informative) by Random2 on Thursday April 10 2014, @04:18PM
The word 'implies' has the same problem the word 'theory' does, it means one thing in common language but another in formal language [wolfram.com].
In formal logic, and the kind used to make conclusive statements a correlation is NOT an implication. Informally it's whatever society wants it to be.
If only I registered 3 users earlier....
(Score: 2) by tangomargarine on Thursday April 10 2014, @05:34PM
Heh, yeah. Now if only I could remember how to untangle "A is necessary and sufficient for B" :-)
"Is that really true?" "I just spent the last hour telling you to think for yourself! Didn't you hear anything I said?"
(Score: 5, Informative) by Thexalon on Thursday April 10 2014, @04:19PM
Actually, a demonstrable and repeated correlation between factors A and B implies any of the following, possibly in combination:
1. A causes B.
2. B causes A.
3. A third unknown factor C causes both A and B.
The next steps, which all too often never happen, are:
- Look for the same correlation on a different data set, to reduce the odds it's a coincidence.
- Look for mechanisms that would allow A to cause B or vice versa.
- If you don't find a good mechanism in the last step, look for those unknown factors.
The problem with the standard "Correlation does not imply causation" argument is that some think that means correlations are worthless. They aren't: If you have a clear correlation, then that means that the factors you are correlating might well be related in some way.
The only thing that stops a bad guy with a compiler is a good guy with a compiler.
(Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday April 10 2014, @05:30PM
It may also be
4. Quantum entanglement.
Although for everyday correlations, that's an extremely unlikely explanation.
(Score: 2) by Bot on Thursday April 10 2014, @05:00PM
I suggest proceeding by smaller steps.
Example "Correlation absolutely implies Correlation".
Account abandoned.
(Score: 2) by MrGuy on Thursday April 10 2014, @05:20PM
I'm a fan of "Causation happens."