> I challenge you dear reader, the next time there's a science article presented, to think about something more interesting to say than "correlation != causatio

> I challenge you dear reader, the next time there's a science article presented, to think about something more interesting to say than "correlation != causation". I challenge the writers of articles to write articles which doesn’t walk into this problem. > Say you are caring for a population of elderly people and you need to triage who to give more stability support (say carers, walking aids, etc). Do a grip strength test! But that’s not what the article says, does it? “The single most effective set of muscles you can work to extend your life is in your hands.” This is the first line of the article, and it is completely unsupported by data or studies. So how are we missing the point? > The correlation is important, it doesn't matter if the correlation is causal in nature. But it does matter! If it is causal then we should give hand strengthening devices to everyone. We should have fun hand strength competitions in social settings to encurage everyone to care about their grip strength. If it is not casual then we can use it as a diagnostic indicator precisely as you say. In that case it is actually a bad idea to encourage people to strenghten their grip, because that might break the correlation between ill-health and grip strength, thus ruining the diagnostic indicator without helping anyone to live a healthier life. How can you say it doesn’t matter if the correct reaction differs this much?