Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

mysteriously_moist t1_j9mgcn4 wrote

>Correlation ≠ causation

I am aware that was the point of me bringing up the scientific method as a way of distinguishing the two.

We were not talking about this study, we were talking about the validity of the study that supports the theory that men are more likely to leave women with serious illnesses, than women are to leave men with serious illnesses. Which you were dismissive of.

My only point was to provide evidence for it being a common belief, as I and many other people are aware of this research. I am not involved in the original conversation of a potential study from the perspective of men concerning the health benifits of being in happy relationships. I would assume they would also be healthier as less stress is better regardless of gender, but in the world of science you don't know unless you do various studies to find out.

2

insaneintheblain t1_j9mpos6 wrote

For example I do not believe it - it is therefore not a common belief, merely a popular one.

Statistics give an indication of what could be, never reveal what is.

What is the validity of having a study comparing men with women? Does it achieve a goal of enlightening the individual of their own circumstances?

The more you ask questions of it (using the scientific method) the more it falls apart.

2

mysteriously_moist t1_j9n1fpo wrote

You are in denial of data, asking morality questions to numbers is like asking a brick wall to describe the colour green. Your feelings do not change the numbers, the numbers do not care if you would rather not think about the increased likelihood of men leaving their seriously ill partners.

If you do not agree with the study then disprove it with your own, that is how it is done. Until then I'm afraid any philosophical questions or your own personal beliefs do nothing to change the statistics.

2