5 ms·

I don't like that phrase. While I get what it's going toward, it makes it feel as though some kind of "special" correlation implies causation. Really, correlat

• erikb 12y ago
  When something implies correlation it doesn't mean there actually is correlation. It just means it might be worth to look deeper into that direction, right? Therefore you need all these different attributes to show a causation exists, but a single one should be enough to imply causation. note: I might actually really confusing my word definitions here, btw.
  • tel 12y ago
    You can't exactly imply correlation (in simple models) you merely observe it. You can imply causation since it's a theoretical claim, not just an observation. What I meant to say before is that correlation cannot imply causation in and of itself because it is merely an observation—you must also build a framework of causal assumptions within which your observed correlation could have only arisen if there was a causal relationship of interest. That final statement is the "implication" we're all talking about. So, "correlation along with an acceptable and proper set of counterfactual assumptions is capable of imply causation sometimes". Just rolls off the tongue, really.