To clarify, I'm not suggesting that correlation implies causation here (indeed, I think they take away your programmer card if you can't quickly parrot the phra

To clarify, I'm not suggesting that correlation implies causation here (indeed, I think they take away your programmer card if you can't quickly parrot the phrase, "correlation doesn't mean causation"). From the NIST Engineer's Handbook: "Generally, we first need to find and explore correlations and then try to establish causal relationships. It is much easier to find correlations as these are just properties of the data." So I'm saying that correlation is often used (and misused) in an attempt to find good candidates for causation. This is how much science and engineering is practiced. If you disagree with this, you disagree with some fundamentals of how the scientific method is used (ie, hypothesis forming). > To me correlation is more a way to reinforce a hypothesis of causality that is already suspected It certainly can be used in this way, but that doesn't mean it's the only scientifically-valid way to use it.