It can be very challenging to assess what information to believe. One simple way to evaluate evidence is via something called "Hill's Criteria",
considerations to help assess whether an observation has a *causal* component
I'll describe them using xkcd comics
1/12

I'll describe them using xkcd comics

1/12
Sir Austin Bradford Hill, a statistician & epidemiologist, created a list of guidelines for evaluating whether there is evidence of a causal relationship. He determined the following aspects ought to be considered when assessing causality
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1898525/pdf/procrsmed00196-0010.pdf
2/12
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1898525/pdf/procrsmed00196-0010.pdf
2/12




https://xkcd.com/539/
3/12




http://xkcd.com/242/
4/12


http://xkcd.com/1217/
5/12




http://xkcd.com/925/
6/12



http://xkcd.com/323/
7/12



http://xkcd.com/605/
8/12



http://xkcd.com/1170/
9/12




http://xkcd.com/1462/
10/12
There is lots of incoming information and data these days, hopefully these principles can help a bit with sifting through the noise! I have a blogpost version of this here if that is your
cup of tea:
https://livefreeordichotomize.com/2016/12/15/hill-for-the-data-scientist-an-xkcd-story/
12/12

https://livefreeordichotomize.com/2016/12/15/hill-for-the-data-scientist-an-xkcd-story/
12/12