>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

>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.