3 ms·
I share this criticism. It's almost like you have to scream at people that although correlation doesn't imply _direct_ causation, it most certainly does imply s
by ohwellhere 5y ago
I share this criticism. It's almost like you have to scream at people that although correlation doesn't imply _direct_ causation, it most certainly does imply some causal chain.
Ruling out chance through significance and power, what phenomenon in the world is correlated without being causally related _somehow_?
- PeterSmit 5y agoWell, it can also be pure randomness
- School-Cotton 5y agoThey did say “ruling out chance”.
- harry8 5y agoTake the worst intersection in the country this week for traffic accidents. Close the roads to the intersection at 3am and organise a contemporary expressive dance performance to rid the intersection of its evil and re-open it 30 minutes later. Repeat every week with the worst traffic intersection for accidents. What you find is. IT WORKS! HURRAH! These intersections are more than usually not the worst the following week! The evidence is clear. The correlation is utterly compelling. It is significant. It has power. How could it possibly be unrelated? Now if we stop it being comically silly in our example and make it a red light & speed camera, see how the issue is much more difficult. There is a clear line of potential causation of fixing dangerous intersections. But is it really better than folk dancing for 20 minutes at 2am? [1] [1] This example should not be interpreted as being an opposition to all red light and speed cameras.