<HTML>ISHMAEL wrote:
[...]
> There might well BE a connection between these statistics -
There <i>might</i>, but there is no evidence that there <i>is</i>.
> all connections are not cause and effect.
Please point me to the message where it was asserted that all "connections" <i>are</i> cause and effect.
> The example you cite is an excellent example of a possible
> correlative effect stemming from a common source phenomena.
No it isn't. The sink issue has a technological 'cause'; i.e. that stainless steel sinks became increasingly easier/cheaper to manufacture and install than ceramic or enamelled ones. The divorce rate had a socio-economic 'cause' (much as you suggested) that was not related to to the specific technological change re sinks.
> It is therefore logical to expect that
> greater female influence on household budgets might result in
> a similar rise in the purchase of material goods associated
> with traditional female roles (such as stainless steal sinks
> which are ussually located in the kitchen or laundry).
The point you are missing is that major contribution of increase in stainless steel sinks was <i>new</i> housing, not <replacements</i> in old housing. That they were cheaper blows a hole in the 'increased purchasing power' argument.
I would also remind you that you propose a common mechanism of causation for the correlated phemomena.
A much more plausible (but still incorrect) scenario proposed (in jest) by one of my students is that divorce leads to a greater need for housing, which in turn leads to a greater demand for sinks, the majority of which will be steel.
> I would predict that throughout this same period, we should
> see a rise in the purchase of similar household goods: vacum
> cleaners, pots and pans, toaster ovens, washers and dryers
> etc - a proportionally larger increase that we might see in
> the area of fishing poles and golf clubs.
We probably do, but if you believe that any of these parallels the divorce rate as do the sinks, please produce the data.
>
> Your error is forgetting that it is not necissary to
> establish a "cause and effect" relationship in order to
> establish a relationship.
And yours is to assume I had forgotten it. As you have frequently done in the past, you confuse your observations (what I have actually stated) with your conclusions (how you have chosen to interpret what has been stated). In this case, you need to recognise the distinction between 'mechanisms of causation' (i.e. something that includes the possibility of two correlated phenomena having a common cause) and 'direct causation' (i.e. one phenomenon directly causing the other phenomenon that correlates with it).
> All it tells us is that the belt star arrangment
> did not arrise by coincidence at Giza.
Please describe how you would differentiate statistically between a perfect correlation that occurrs by chance and one that does not.</HTML>
