3 ms·

Ignoring correlation != causation is also anti-science, although it seems to be widespread even among "science".

rileymat2 4y ago
This is true, but when you see correlation it is a great signal to look for causation. But my question to you, in the event of a positive correlation and not having good causation data in either direction, a reasonable person may start to act on the correlation for qualitative reasons. For example if an initial study of the past finds cigarette smoking correlated with lung cancer, a reasonable person might qualitatively know that smoke goes into the lungs so a lung cancer cause is reasonable and use that as enough reason to stop smoking. It would be unreasonable,IMO, to say “correlation != causation” and keep smoking.
admax88qqq 4y ago
Correlation does not equal causation is one of the most widely misunderstood sciencey terms. It would be better phrased as "correlation does not prove causation, but it does imply a relationship" Yes just because something is correlated does not necessarily mean they the have a direct causal relationship, and more importantly it doesn't indicate which way a possible causal relationship would exist. But it does imply that they have a relationship, either directly or that they are both driven by a third force. You have to apply some additional logic. What's more likely? A) Coffee consumption causes good health. B) Good health causes coffee consumption. C) Some other force causes improves health AND increased coffee consumption. D) This is a spurious correlation. B seems absurd. Or at least would have limited measurably effect. Yes healthy people are more able to drink coffee but it seems like such an effect would be limited. C could be the case, but with coffee consumption being a deliberate action, if you believe in free will, a seems more likely. Yes it could also be a spurious correlation, I guess that's possible too. In this specific case, at the very least you can conclude that coffee is not acutely harmful. If coffee _was_ acutely harmful you would expect to see an inverse correlation between coffee consumption and general health.
mythrwy 4y ago
I find this cartoon funny. Sorry for the link. https://img.ifunny.co/images/a0c9b063bf19079839a427ca1cb4ece34bd50096be04876023092b0c0b2f6721_1.webp https://img.ifunny.co/images/a0c9b063bf19079839a427ca1cb4ece...

This is true, but when you see correlation it is a great signal to look for causation. But my question to you, in the event of a positive correlation and not having good causation data in either direction, a reasonable person may start to act on the correlation for qualitative reasons. For example if an initial study of the past finds cigarette smoking correlated with lung cancer, a reasonable person might qualitatively know that smoke goes into the lungs so a lung cancer cause is reasonable and use that as enough reason to stop smoking. It would be unreasonable,IMO, to say “correlation != causation” and keep smoking.

admax88qqq 4y ago

Correlation does not equal causation is one of the most widely misunderstood sciencey terms. It would be better phrased as "correlation does not prove causation, but it does imply a relationship" Yes just because something is correlated does not necessarily mean they the have a direct causal relationship, and more importantly it doesn't indicate which way a possible causal relationship would exist. But it does imply that they have a relationship, either directly or that they are both driven by a third force. You have to apply some additional logic. What's more likely? A) Coffee consumption causes good health. B) Good health causes coffee consumption. C) Some other force causes improves health AND increased coffee consumption. D) This is a spurious correlation. B seems absurd. Or at least would have limited measurably effect. Yes healthy people are more able to drink coffee but it seems like such an effect would be limited. C could be the case, but with coffee consumption being a deliberate action, if you believe in free will, a seems more likely. Yes it could also be a spurious correlation, I guess that's possible too. In this specific case, at the very least you can conclude that coffee is not acutely harmful. If coffee _was_ acutely harmful you would expect to see an inverse correlation between coffee consumption and general health.

mythrwy 4y ago

I find this cartoon funny. Sorry for the link. https://img.ifunny.co/images/a0c9b063bf19079839a427ca1cb4ece34bd50096be04876023092b0c0b2f6721_1.webp https://img.ifunny.co/images/a0c9b063bf19079839a427ca1cb4ece...