4 ms·

>Correlation is not causation. But correlation is evidence of causation.

• Tyrannosaurs 12y ago
  No it isn't, correlation is evidence of correlation but it doesn't even imply causation. Unless you believe correlation is providing evidence of causation here: http://gizmodo.com/5977989/internet-explorer-vs-murder-rate-will-be-your-favorite-chart-today http://gizmodo.com/5977989/internet-explorer-vs-murder-rate-... and here: http://www.forbes.com/sites/erikaandersen/2012/03/23/true-fact-the-lack-of-pirates-is-causing-global-warming/ http://www.forbes.com/sites/erikaandersen/2012/03/23/true-fa...
  • mistercow 12y ago
    >Unless you believe correlation is providing evidence of causation here: In both cases, yes, it is evidence of causation. However the low prior probability of causation in each case massively overwhelms the evidence provided by observing a correlation. Here's an easy way to tell if A is evidence of B: ask the inverse question - is "not A" evidence of "not B". If so, it is trivially provable that the answer is yes.
• saalweachter 12y ago
  It would have been more appropriate to have said "cooccurrence is not causation", because there isn't actually a correlation between personality flaws and accomplishment, just some notable cooccurrences.