Just for clarification on my above posts concerning association vs causation, I want to be clear that I’m not saying that we should completely demonize association or that there is no place for it. Im just saying that we can’t use associations to draw very hard and accurate, in other words absolute conclusions.
There is much that can be gleaned from association in some cases, especially where it would be very difficult or even impossible to prove absolute causation.
For example, there is no true “causative” proof that smoking CAUSES cancer. If this were the case, then EVERY person that smoked cigarettes would have cancer. We know that’s not the case though don’t we? All we really can conclude, via association, is that smoking INCREASES THE RISK of cancer.
If you have whatever disorder, deficiency, or gene (there is no absolutely proven cause that I know of yet) that makes you prone to cancer, then smoking will more than likely seal the deal. In this case, the association can definitely be helpful in determining that it’s probably not a good idea to smoke cigarettes. Especially since we do not know the root cause of cancer, and therefore can’t rule out whether or not you will develop it from smoking.
On the flip side of this, and an example of where association fails us, is the conclusion that has been made in the past that exogenous testosterone causes prostate cancer. We now know that this is not true as well though there was plenty evidence to support the associative theory back then.
What we now know is that, if you have prostate cancer, testosterone can accelerate the condition. What we can glean from this associative mistake though, is this…
If you have prostate cancer, don’t start TRT!
I hope this helps to clarify what I’m trying to say.