(May 27, 2016 at 12:55 pm)Rhythm Wrote: You're really stretching your credibility with me at this point.
The presence of water in a flooded field, or a poisoned table - does not correspond with increases in yield, as they might, for example, under drought conditions. You have been imprecise and your misapprehension is the price paid. Presence, availability, and amount are not interchangeable - it is the latter two which correspond with the outcome -you- referenced, attempting to claim them now, after having been corrected... for your horrid question, is shameless posturing, lol.
It's not a yes, it's a reminder that you can expect to extract precisely what you put in to any means of inference. GIGO. Rephrase the question to more accurately describe the correlations we find and then use to draw inferences regarding cause in our determinist model.... and I will, invariably and inexorably, be able to agree. Proceed as is and I already know we aren't talking about the same thing.
Great. So it's a no. Thanks!
