>The next time you think to say "correllation does not imply causation" I didn't write that phrase precisely because people turn off their brains and learn not

>The next time you think to say "correllation does not imply causation" I didn't write that phrase precisely because people turn off their brains and learn nothing from it! It's become worthless. The alternative to A -> B is B -> A, or C -> A and B. You seriously think that running through those possibilities in your head is "dogmatism"? Who then is the authority on which one of those is privileged and which require further research to validate, when they are all consistent with the evidence so far?