4 ms·

"correlation does not imply causation" must be a strong contender.

by m_a_g 5y ago

IshKebab 5y ago
It's a really misleading saying because of the ambiguity of "implies". It's true if you interpret "implies" in the mathematical sense - i.e. "proves". But it's not true if you interpret "implies" in the normal sense - i.e. "suggests". Correlation does not prove causation, but it does suggest it.
- WmyEE0UsWAwC2i 5y ago
  When someone mentions correlation, they imply a linear relation between the correlated variables and a range of values for which that relation is valid. Only when that model is further validated correlation suggests causation.
  - IshKebab 5y ago
    > When someone mentions correlation, they imply a linear relation between the correlated variables and a range of values for which that relation is valid. Yeah that's what correlation means? > Only when that model is further validated correlation suggests causation. No! It suggests causation already. There may not be causation but it definitely suggests it. For example if I find that eating fast food correlates with BMI then there's a pretty clear suggestion that eating fast food causes increased BMI. It might not be the case! But it's clearly very suggestive.
    - WmyEE0UsWAwC2i 5y ago
      I believe I understand your point, but there these options (as I see things): 1. There is little correlation, but there is actual causation (e.g: a cricle) 2. There is correlation, but it turns out to be a fluke later during validation. So, yes. It suggests but in both cases I'd rather continue checkcing
- corobo 5y ago
  Reminded me of xkcd 522[1] alt text haha > Correlation doesn't imply causation, but it does waggle its eyebrows suggestively and gesture furtively while mouthing 'look over there' [1] https://xkcd.com/552/ https://xkcd.com/552/
orev 5y ago
And this part is always omitted: “you can’t have causation without correlation”
- marcosdumay 5y ago
  Well, you can. You just need confounding causes.
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]

"correlation does not imply causation" must be a strong contender.

by m_a_g 5y ago

"correlation does not imply causation" must be a strong contender.

It's a really misleading saying because of the ambiguity of "implies". It's true if you interpret "implies" in the mathematical sense - i.e. "proves". But it's not true if you interpret "implies" in the normal sense - i.e. "suggests". Correlation does not prove causation, but it does suggest it.

WmyEE0UsWAwC2i 5y ago
When someone mentions correlation, they imply a linear relation between the correlated variables and a range of values for which that relation is valid. Only when that model is further validated correlation suggests causation.
- IshKebab 5y ago
  > When someone mentions correlation, they imply a linear relation between the correlated variables and a range of values for which that relation is valid. Yeah that's what correlation means? > Only when that model is further validated correlation suggests causation. No! It suggests causation already. There may not be causation but it definitely suggests it. For example if I find that eating fast food correlates with BMI then there's a pretty clear suggestion that eating fast food causes increased BMI. It might not be the case! But it's clearly very suggestive.
  - WmyEE0UsWAwC2i 5y ago
    I believe I understand your point, but there these options (as I see things): 1. There is little correlation, but there is actual causation (e.g: a cricle) 2. There is correlation, but it turns out to be a fluke later during validation. So, yes. It suggests but in both cases I'd rather continue checkcing
corobo 5y ago
Reminded me of xkcd 522[1] alt text haha > Correlation doesn't imply causation, but it does waggle its eyebrows suggestively and gesture furtively while mouthing 'look over there' [1] https://xkcd.com/552/ https://xkcd.com/552/

orev 5y ago

And this part is always omitted: “you can’t have causation without correlation”

marcosdumay 5y ago
Well, you can. You just need confounding causes.

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]