Reply #18: You need to muster more facts to support your case... [View All]

[eomer]

because the ones you are using are insufficient to reach the conclusion that you do.

Take two sets of data, each with some pattern of distribution and not correlated with each other. Call these two sets A and B.

Now we are going to lay another set of data, call it C, on top of each of the two first sets. The way we lay C on top of A and B is by adding it. In this way we have created two new sets of data:

A' = A + C
B' = B + C

Check for correlation between A' and B'.

You say that if A' and B' don't show significant correlation then it is not possible that they were created by adding C to A and B.

If I can construct an example where C is added to A and B and the resulting A' and B' show no significant correlation then I have disproved your hypothesis.

Since your logic doesn't involve any assumptions about the distributions of A, B & C, I can make them anything I want. So I will give A & B each a large dose of variation and I will give C relatively little variation. Now hold on for a minute while I check whether my example shows correlation between A' and B'. If it does, I'll increase the variation in A and B and decrease that of C and check again. I'll repeat this process until I get to the point where A' and B' show no significant correlation.

Clearly I can construct an example that disproves your hypothesis.

This means that you need to muster some additional facts to support your case. You need to say something about the amount of variation in A, B and C. Unfortunately in the real world we have no way of determining A, B and C - we only know A' and B'. So I don't know how you would be able to accomplish this, but it is necessary if you want to demonstrate the conclusion you are putting forward.