5 ms·

Because "correlation is not causation" is just plain wrong. What is should be is "correlation does not imply causation". This is where science comes in. To answ

Because "correlation is not causation" is just plain wrong. What is should be is "correlation does not imply causation". This is where science comes in. To answer the question, is this correlation because of causation? The statement is only important to people doing statistical analysis not experimental science.

coldtea 11y ago
>correlation does not imply causation It sure does. It might not prove causation, or it might not necessitate causation, but it very much implies it. Somehow people forget that "imply" means: "indicate the truth or existence of (something) by suggestion rather than explicit reference". In this -- the dictionary and everyday sense -- correlation DOES imply (suggest) causation. It just doesn't secure it.
- smadge 11y ago
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Material_conditional https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Material_conditional aka implication or implies Definitions differ depending on the context, both definitions are valid.
- graeme 11y ago
  That can't be right. There are so many spurious correlations that obviously imply nothing. There's got to be some other required factor before correlation can imply causation. Like "if there's reason to believe something is relevant, and there is correlation, then that implies causation. "
  - stephengillie 11y ago
    But a "reason to believe something is relevant" is a prejudged correlation.
  - taejo 11y ago
    imply, v. ... (transitive, of a person or proposition) to hint; to insinuate; to suggest tacitly and avoid a direct statement
- roblev 11y ago
  99.26% correlation is observed between the Divorce Rate in Maine, and the Per Capita Consumption of Margarine http://www.tylervigen.com/spurious-correlations http://www.tylervigen.com/spurious-correlations You say this implies causation... I have my doubts in any sense of the word implies. For sure, a correlation could lead to something to investigate, but look at enough data and you will find plenty of correlations that mean nothing. A lot depends on how the correlation is discovered (number of variables involved etc.).
  - coldtea 11y ago
    >You say this implies causation... I have my doubts in any sense of the word implies. Couples divorcing people their partner got fat on margarine? Besides that's not the best way to check correlation charts. You first have to remove bias components influencing both curves, e.g. the mere act that both are rising over time. When you do that, do they still match each other, e.g. following increases and decreases? I very much doubt so. So this plot doesn't actually show correlation -- just that both "increase" over time in a similar way. The same kind of "same plot trends" happens or every set of things that e.g. both have an exponential growth curve -- but it's not correlation unless both change consistently as the other changes.
- karlb 11y ago
  >correlation does not imply causation Perhaps we should say, “Correlation correlates with causation.” (Because causation is a subset of correlation.)
enraged_camel 11y ago
Isn't the full version something along the lines of: "correlation does not imply causation, but merely hints at it"?
TeMPOraL 11y ago
I think XKCD (like usual) sums it up the best, this time in the alt-text of [0]: "Correlation doesn't imply causation, but it does waggle its eyebrows suggestively and gesture furtively while mouthing 'look over there'." [0] - https://xkcd.com/552/ https://xkcd.com/552/

coldtea 11y ago

>correlation does not imply causation It sure does. It might not prove causation, or it might not necessitate causation, but it very much implies it. Somehow people forget that "imply" means: "indicate the truth or existence of (something) by suggestion rather than explicit reference". In this -- the dictionary and everyday sense -- correlation DOES imply (suggest) causation. It just doesn't secure it.

smadge 11y ago
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Material_conditional https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Material_conditional aka implication or implies Definitions differ depending on the context, both definitions are valid.
graeme 11y ago
That can't be right. There are so many spurious correlations that obviously imply nothing. There's got to be some other required factor before correlation can imply causation. Like "if there's reason to believe something is relevant, and there is correlation, then that implies causation. "
- stephengillie 11y ago
  But a "reason to believe something is relevant" is a prejudged correlation.
- taejo 11y ago
  imply, v. ... (transitive, of a person or proposition) to hint; to insinuate; to suggest tacitly and avoid a direct statement
roblev 11y ago
99.26% correlation is observed between the Divorce Rate in Maine, and the Per Capita Consumption of Margarine http://www.tylervigen.com/spurious-correlations http://www.tylervigen.com/spurious-correlations You say this implies causation... I have my doubts in any sense of the word implies. For sure, a correlation could lead to something to investigate, but look at enough data and you will find plenty of correlations that mean nothing. A lot depends on how the correlation is discovered (number of variables involved etc.).
- coldtea 11y ago
  >You say this implies causation... I have my doubts in any sense of the word implies. Couples divorcing people their partner got fat on margarine? Besides that's not the best way to check correlation charts. You first have to remove bias components influencing both curves, e.g. the mere act that both are rising over time. When you do that, do they still match each other, e.g. following increases and decreases? I very much doubt so. So this plot doesn't actually show correlation -- just that both "increase" over time in a similar way. The same kind of "same plot trends" happens or every set of things that e.g. both have an exponential growth curve -- but it's not correlation unless both change consistently as the other changes.
karlb 11y ago
>correlation does not imply causation Perhaps we should say, “Correlation correlates with causation.” (Because causation is a subset of correlation.)

enraged_camel 11y ago

Isn't the full version something along the lines of: "correlation does not imply causation, but merely hints at it"?

TeMPOraL 11y ago

I think XKCD (like usual) sums it up the best, this time in the alt-text of [0]: "Correlation doesn't imply causation, but it does waggle its eyebrows suggestively and gesture furtively while mouthing 'look over there'." [0] - https://xkcd.com/552/ https://xkcd.com/552/