3 ms·
Correlation is not evidence for causation.
by alexeisadeski3 12y ago
Correlation 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.