4 ms·
While correlation isn't causation, it is certainly evidence for causation. Plus, in many cases, careful analysis alone can reveal the presence (or absence) of
by loup-vaillant 12y ago
While correlation isn't causation, it is certainly evidence for causation.
Plus, in many cases, careful analysis alone can reveal the presence (or absence) of causation with great certainty.
- alexeisadeski3 12y agoCorrelation is not evidence for causation.
- Fishkins 12y agoWhy do you say that? It seems clear to me it is. Do you disagree that A being caused by B usually means A and B correlated[0]? That's all that's necessary to say correlation is evidence for causation. 0: I know there are some exceptions, but they seem rare. http://stats.stackexchange.com/questions/26300/does-causation-imply-correlation http://stats.stackexchange.com/questions/26300/does-causatio...
- sosborn 12y agoevidence != proof He is simply stating that correlation can indicate a need to look deeper into the data, which is IMO true.
- mikeash 12y agoYes it is. If A and B are correlated, and C and D are not correlated, then absent other information, it's much more likely that A and B are causally related. I think people get confused because there can be evidence for things that aren't true.