Regression Fallacy
From EvoWiki
|
This page is part of the EvoWiki encyclopedia of fallacies. |
Contents |
Explanation
You commit the Regression Fallacy if you take ordinary statistical variation as proof that specific causes were at work.
Example
- "Approximately 3,000 people were killed in the U.S. due to terrorism in 2001. There were twelve such deaths in 2002. This shows that techniques to prevent terrorism were massively improved after 2001."
This is fallacious. Historically, deaths due to terrorism in the U.S. are rare events, and therefore, after a major spike in the statistics, it is to be expected that there is a regression toward the mean: that the next year's figures would be more like the historical norm.
Discussion
In general, moving from a mere statistical correlation (or negative correlation) to proof of cause and effect is tricky. In the above example, anti-terrorist measures may indeed have played a role in preventing major attacks in 2002, but the statistics alone are only very weak evidence for this.
External links
- Regression fallacy on Wikipedia
- Regression toward the mean on Wikipedia
