Yes sir, yessir, yezzir. Exactly what I'm trying to say. :D (Caution ahead: unnecessary detour...in the form of a light rant) Correlation is so, so often mist

Yes sir, yessir, yezzir. Exactly what I'm trying to say. :D (Caution ahead: unnecessary detour...in the form of a light rant) Correlation is so, so often mistaken for causation. And unlike most logical fallacies, 'correlation vs. causation' seems to know no borders whatsoever. That fact is really very striking to me. Ad hominem attacks, for example, are extremely prevalent in political discussion, especially on political talk shows, but you'd rarely see one in such forums as medical journals, formal debates, et al. But 'correlation vs. causation' fallacies seem, to me at least, to be pervasive throughout nearly every-- if not all-- forums of discussion. Sure, it's worse in some areas than it is in others, but it's everywhere. Personally, I'm most annoyed when I see it in magazine and newspaper articles (especially frequent in those on medical studies and surveys and whatnot), not because journalists/writers should be more aware of this fallacy than the rest of the population but because these places are supposed to be our most reliable, most verifiable sources of information available. And they're not just supposed to be, they claim to be as well. 99.237% of the time, I'm a very laid-back guy. 0.763% of the time, I'm reading an article titled "Eating mashed potatoes and gravy causes CANCER?" or some similar nonsense. (Intentionally ridiculous example chosen. Everybody knows mashed potatoes and gravy have no capacity for evil, none whatsoever.)