3 ms·
Correlation implies causation, which is why scientists proceed from there in search of proof. You're trying to contend it doesn't prove, and thereby imply the w
by ctdonath 10y ago
Correlation implies causation, which is why scientists proceed from there in search of proof. You're trying to contend it doesn't prove, and thereby imply the whole of the research involved is wrong.
Incoherent accusations, poor punctuation, and profanity correlate with incompetence. They don't prove you are, but you certainly might be.
- dragonwriter 10y ago> Correlation implies causation Strictly logically speaking, it does not. Probabilistically, it does; or, IOW, correlation correlates with causation.
- ctdonath 10y agocorrelation correlates with causation I like that.
- fragsworth 10y agoActually, probabilistically, it does not. There's effectively infinite correlations you can come up with that have no cause and effect
- dragonwriter 10y agoWhen I say there is a probabilistic implication, I mean, basically: P (X causes Y|X correlates with Y) > P (X causes Y) > P (X causes Y|X doesn't correlate with Y)
- fragsworth 10y agoYeah, I don't think that conjecture holds (or even makes sense?), if you're talking about the set of all possible correlations. If you take the limits, you end up getting 0 > 0 > 0.
- placeybordeaux 10y ago> Correlation implies causation It doesn't. > which is why scientists proceed from there in search of proof. Scientists don't prove anything, in fact all they do is disprove or fail to do so.