> This approach has given us the oft-repeated (but slightly fallacious) line that 'correlation does not imply causation' (I would say that it can imply it, just

> This approach has given us the oft-repeated (but slightly fallacious) line that 'correlation does not imply causation' (I would say that it can imply it, just often not much more). I always thought that this expression used the word "imply" in its mathematical sense, i.e. "correlation is not a sufficient condition for causation". Did I get that wrong, or did the author?