XPost: misc.phone.mobile.iphone, comp.mobile.android   
   From: ithinkiam@gmail.com   
      
   Jolly Roger  Wrote in message:   
   > chris  wrote:   
   >> On 09/12/2015 05:46, Jolly Roger wrote:   
   >>> Paul M. Cook  wrote:   
   >>>> On Tue, 08 Dec 2015 20:36:17 -0800, Savageduck wrote:   
   >>>>   
   >>>>> Your assumption is that accident rates should rise with cellphone   
   >>>>> ownership.   
   >>>>   
   >>>> That is exactly the assumption I would make   
   >>>   
   >>> It's good you admit you are making this huge I'll-advised assumption.   
   >>>   
   >>>> if all these are true:   
   >>>>   
   >>>> 1. Cellphone use is distracting & distractions are dangerous   
   >>>> 2. Accident rates compiled over the past 50 years are reliable   
   >>>> 3. Cellphone ownership skyrocketed during a certain time frame   
   >>>> & we assume a percentage of owners use them while driving.   
   >>>   
   >>> Of course you're ignoring the many factors unrelated to cell phone use that   
   >>> may decrease accident rates, because that's the only way your silly   
   >>> argument can work.   
   >>   
   >> Exactly.   
   >>   
   >> Even if the accident rate did go up it wouldn't be proof that cellphone   
   >> use causes accidents. It only shows that there is a *correlation*   
   >> between the two. As we all know correlation does not imply causation.   
   >> The correlation could be down to a totally unrelated effect. Just like   
   >> ice cream sales don't cause shark attacks:   
   >> https://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Correlation   
   >>   
   >> The only way to truly test whether one effect causes another is to test   
   >> the effect explicitly. For example, take a suitably large number of   
   >> people who drive (it might be 100 or 1000 or 10,000) monitor their   
   >> driving for a suitable period of time (a week or month) both with and   
   >> without a cellphone. Then test to see if there is an   
   >> observable/statistical difference in the rate of accidents (or other   
   >> measure such as 'near misses') when the people drove while using a   
   >> cellphone vs when they didn't. Job done.   
   >   
   > Accident rate isn't applicable. You measure response times, driver errors,   
   > and so on through direct observation. And that's exactly what studies have   
   > done. Here is just one of several such studies:   
   >   
   >    
      
   Maybe, maybe not. Paul is specifically taking about accidents. You   
    could infer that more distractedness results in more accidents,   
    but if that's what you want to show then you may as well measure   
    that directly.   
      
      
   ----Android NewsGroup Reader----   
   http://usenet.sinaapp.com/   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)