Causal criteria and counterfactuals; nothing more (or less) than scientific common sense

@Zabsteroz @whereisdaz @Darthspoog Yeah using a criteria robotically is not epidemiology, for Bradford Hill or any other. That’s come up before.

@JoeCoyle101 @skepticalprune @swedishchf @AspAlaAsnAsnTyr @MaureenStroud @Top_Muppetries @IdunsDaughter @ogilville1 @BeyondTheFacts3 @MsTrixter @The_Seeadler @VeritasEver @provaxtexan @jtmayes3 @ghoppe @janem1276 @richykirsh @TonyBaduy @andylumm @AndrewLaz

@axexang @yvonneredmond @SoniaPoulton BTW, thank you for introducing me to Bradford Hill criteria, as it is very interesting. The criteria seem reasonable, though I tend to agree with the footnoted article that the basic mechanism of proving causality is s

@AlexWodak @Janedroid @JasonOzolins @PeterPhelpsMLC More on "criteria" if you are interested: https://t.co/XAHHB6DpWi