The other day someone told me what he thought was an amusing factoid, phrased exactly as I quoted in the hed.
I looked up what I could. The fact that Samoa, with such a small population, has produced many pro football players is surprising and interesting. It apparently has been widely noted (Google and Wiki).
But that’s historical record. It differs, as far as I can sort it out, where the “If [insert circumstances]…then the chance is …” in responsible medical statistical statements when the causative effect is more or less unambiguous.
True, the causative effect of being from a Samoan culture, which the Wiki and other cites claims is so conducive to football, may have an impact, but cultural dynamics comprise enormous factors. If you’re from farm country you’re odds of being a stoopball wiz (do you all know what stoopball is :)) are slim. But that statement is a “that” one: the odds are that you are is not predictive.
So, in general, here’s a question that has bothered me whenever I see this kind of statement, which is often. It is constant, for one example, in the medical literature I’ve read (ie, for laymen), but is used with abandon in all sorts of situations.
I think that statisticians must have identified the kind of fallacy that I think is going on in the hed.
If not, I’m interested in sorting out the science, as best as I can. It’s really bugged me, and is used so commonly in rhetorical arguments where I think it is a snow screen.