3 ms·
... what? This is precisely the correlation meant in the aphorism you mentioned and is also the only sense of the word correlation of which I am aware of. Signa
by catamorphismic 9y ago
... what? This is precisely the correlation meant in the aphorism you mentioned and is also the only sense of the word correlation of which I am aware of. Signals can be similar (correlated) purely by chance and this cannot be taken to imply a causative link between them.
- phreeza 9y agoIf a correlation is consistent, some sort of causation is quite likely. There are of cause spurious correlations but in physics experiments we can mostly get rid of them by repeating the experiment several times, unlike in economics for example. The more important point, however, is that a correlation between A and B does not imply that A causes B or B causes A. It could also be that unknown factor C causes A and B.
- catamorphismic 9y agoAgreed, though repeated measurements weren't mentioned so I thought it was important to emphasize that finding a correlation in one measurement cannot be taken to imply causation, which sounded like what OP was saying. Your point is a very good one, though. If we view causation through a causal graph, such that vertices are variables and direct causal links are arrows (directed edges), a statement "correlation doesn't imply causation" can be taken to mean several things: * From correlation, we cannot determine the direction of the arrow. * From correlation, we cannot claim there *is* a (direct) arrow between two vertices. * From correlation, we cannot claim there is even a path from one vertex to the other.
- phreeza 9y agoIndeed. I think it is also important to note that the unknown factor can be something very abstract. For example if you measure the oscillations of two pendulums with the same properties, they will also be correlated, but simply because they are driven by the same underlying physics...