3 ms·

It literally is not.

• wegs 6y ago
  Correction: Correlation is evidence for causation. It's weak evidence, and generally speaking, stronger correlation isn't more evidence. There's a gradual process to go from hypothesis to theory to fact, and to get there, you need several types of independent evidence. Correlational evidence is okay as one of those. A correct statement is that correlation is not proof of causation (no matter how strong). Types of evidence: * Correlation * Theoretical basis / strong hypothesis * Extrapolation * Interpolation * Small-scale well-controlled experiments (lab setting) * Large-scale less controlled experiments (real-world setting) * Anecdotes * ... and so on You want several of those before you start to believe anything, and some are stronger than others. Correlation isn't fundamentally weaker than most of those, though; all of those carry their own methodological issues. The number of times you can have a large-scale perfectly-controlled preregistered randomized control trial with no confounding effects is exceptionally rare (some medical trials, and a few other settings).
• benibela 6y ago
  But it is There are several algorithms that calculate the causal structure from correlations: PC, GES, FGS, FCI They are proven to be asymptotically correct