2 ms·
Corrolation doesn't equate to causation Yes this is correct. And to go off on a general tangent, correlation tells you where to start looking. After all, if A
by rmc 14y ago
Corrolation doesn't equate to causation
Yes this is correct. And to go off on a general tangent, correlation tells you where to start looking. After all, if A & B are correlated, then one of these statements must be true: "A causes B", "B causes A" or "there is something else, C, which causes A and B".
Just because you can find a correlation, doesn't mean that finding is irrelevant. It is very interesting and tells you where to start looking.
- ceejayoz 14y ago> After all, if A & B are correlated, then one of these statements must be true: "A causes B", "B causes A" or "there is something else, C, which causes A and B". You missed "it's purely coincidence", which is an entirely valid option.
- rmc 14y agoYou should do enough experiments to be able to state with statistical confidence that it's not a coincidence.
- greenyoda 14y agoThe correlation could also be due to a flaw in your experimental design (e.g., something in your lab is contaminating your samples, or the researcher has an unconscious bias that skews measurements in a particular direction), in which case repeating the same experiments will not solve the problem.
- rmc 14y agoSure, there's loads of ways an experiment can be flawed. But also, it might not be flawed. If you're got a good experiment that shows correlation, then it has to be one of the 3 results above.
- ceejayoz 14y agoNo, it is statistically most likely to be one of the 3 results above. "Has to be" doesn't have much of a place in a statistics discussion. There is a non-zero probability of the correlation being due to chance.