Morning everyone!
I did my first posting in The Science Lab and it gave the motivation to stem another thread based on my enthusiastic manner.
Based on my posting in relation of Einstein and his significant equation of E=mc2...here's a stem which I would like to share.

We do believe (Why would I include "we"?, it represents the human community, gamers and graduates in particular as a whole entity, rather than one subject individual). Actually, the initial intention for the existing of this thread for gamers and graduates in particular (It might spam from other "forumers" as well, AHHH...what the heck, eh?).

What would I like to bring upon this morning? Here's the woodworks:

Correlations are useful even if we have NO THEORY to explain them. In the example of gaming and grades, we might not know why the correlation exists. That does not matter if all we want to do is make predictions. All we need is a reliable correlation. We do not even care if the observations of gaming are accurate or valid, as long as people are consistent in their observations. (For simplicity I would say ceteris peribus comes into play)

If the observed relationship between observational gaming and grades lasts into the future (if it is reliable) then we can make a prediction based on people's observations. "People who say they play X amount of hour in GAMING will end up with a grade-point average of about Y."

It is also possible that different factors are important at different schools, or in different countries. In Korea, being GODLIKE in Warcraft might not correlate with bad grades at all. (I'm NOT SURE of Malaysia but for me, based on my life experience as a gamer and a student, my parents were skeptical on my gaming sessions which can be endless hours in one particular day). Hence heavy duty gaming correlates negatively with grades.

A typical observation of a correlation is based on one group of people (gaming individuals), at one time, in one place. It DOES NOT necessarily reveal a universal truth. This is another reason replication is important. When an important finding is replicated at different places and times, or with different groups of people non gamers, we find out how robust or dependable is the correlation. We may also get hints about the factors that underlie a correlation.

So as for conclusion: Is CORRELATION is SCIENCE or SCIENCE is CORRELATION? V(^o^)V

Regards, Joey~~~

p.s: Okie! Now my brain is all dried up after OC-ing my brain. Better grab a Coke downstairs to chill out!

Dear "Thinkingfox",

Firstly, yu need to understand the meaning of CORRELATION. That's the first step before yu post in reply to my question.
Secondly, yu need to understand the three terminologies; namely; Correlation coefficient, negative correlation and positive correlation.

It is easy to misinterpret correlational measures. They tell us NOTHING at all about CAUSE and EFFECT.

Here's another light bulb for enlightenment. For example, suppose that yu measured the annual income of post secondary students and postgraduates from age 13 to age 35. You would probably find the two VARIABLES—income and age—to be POSITIVELY CORRELATED.

The wrong way to interpret that correlation is to say that growing working professionals causes people to earn more money. Of course, that isn't true. The correlation can be explained in other ways. Obviously, a 13-year-old fella can't earn money the way an 35-year-old or a 25-year-old can. Measures of correlation, such as the correlation coefficient, simply tell whether two variables change in the same way or not without providing any information as to the reason for that relationship.

Of course, scientists often design an experiment so that a measure of correlation will have some MEANING. A nutrition experiment might be designed to test the effect of feeding rats a certain kind of food. (I love seeing those rats being harmed in a way or two)

The experimenter may arrange conditions so that only one factor—the amount of that kind of food—changes in the experiment. Every other condition is left the same throughout the experiment. In such a case, the amount of food is the independent variable and changes in the rat (such as weight changes) are considered the dependent variable. Any correlation between these two variables MIGHT THEN SUGGEST (but WOULD NOT APPROVE) that the food being tested caused weight changes in the rat.

So, it's back to square one: Is CORRELATION IS SCIENCE or SCIENCE IS CORRELATION?

Regards, Joey

p.s: Is SCIENCE IS ART or ART IS SCIENCE? From splitting the atom to painting on the canvas...A possible correlation? Maybe, maybe not...Hmmm~~~

The answer lies within my post script. Thank yu. Joey~~~