Talk:Hair whorl (horse)
 | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||
| |||||||||||
illusory correlation
editHi @Montanabw:. I am unsure about your latest edit. "This is most likely an illusory correlation." This appears to contradict the statement we make earlier about them being "statistical correlations" and so I think yours should be deleted. I would like to make myself clear here so that others do not misunderstand me. I totally understand and accept that correlation is NOT cause and effect. There are many nonesensical correlations where the link is purely statistical and has no basis in causality. So, I am not suggesting for one second that these statistical correlations indicate that hair whorls are an indisputable indicator of behaviour or temperament. What I am concerned about, however, is that the researchers here have been objective, and so the term "illusory" does not apply. DrChrissy (talk) 19:10, 13 March 2016 (UTC)
- OK. somehow, I just want to make the point that correlation is not causation. Whatever gets us there, I'm most certainly open to a better way to say it. Go for a fix! ;-) Montanabw(talk) 21:50, 13 March 2016 (UTC)
- Yup, I very much agree. The Correlation article makes this misconception very clear, but for us to introduce this, I think we might need verifiable sources that are critical of the studies for this reason. Otherwise, a general citation to this potential lack of causality might be interpreted as OR. I have made a link which directs readers to our concerns - shall we see if this remains uncontested? DrChrissy (talk) 22:02, 13 March 2016 (UTC)
- Given that it's tough to prove a negative (don't know if you saw my drama at the articles on the Parelli method and his "horsenalty" concept... which is utter hooey) I say proceed until apprehended. If we get a true believer in hair whorls, we can do more looking for stuff then. Montanabw(talk) 00:42, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
Please do not make ad hoc assumptions
editI see that this ended up on the "Fringe theory noticeboard" with a lot of unsympathetic off-the-cuff comments. [1] That is unfortunate, because this is biology, and nothing is impossible in biology. You should see all the studies about planar cell polarity, exploring very general mechanisms of morphogenesis, which rely on changes in the orientation of the wing hairs of Drosophila! Now that said, there's a reason why people study fruit flies rather than horses - it's because you can't keep a vial of a hundred horses on your shelf, next to 99 more like it on a tray. There are legitimate concerns to note here, namely the small number of horses sampled in these studies, and the subjectivity inherent in certain types of rating that are not blind studies. The best way to approach this though is by documenting the published work impartially but including such caveats as are apparent, leaving the reader to continue his own research. Wnt (talk) 01:03, 16 March 2016 (UTC)
- Well, where reliable sources appear, they can be added. The problem is all the myth and legendary stuff. "Thumb of the prophet?" Yikes... The reality is people love to find excuses other than their own lack of animal-handling skill for their horse problems. Sigh... but point taken. Montanabw(talk) 05:16, 16 March 2016 (UTC)