4 ms·
Bad winter weather can cause auto accidents, and we expect a positive correlation between bad winter storms and winter auto accidents. Okay, but in the norther
by graycat 12y ago
Bad winter weather can cause auto accidents, and we expect a positive correlation between bad winter storms and winter auto accidents. Okay, but in the northern hemisphere, living in more northern latitudes also correlates with winter auto accidents but does not cause them.
For heart disease, we know that the main causes have to do with aging. Well, then, since now the audience for TV news is comparatively old, we can expect that watching TV news has positive correlation with heart disease. Still watching TV news does not cause heart disease.
In the US NE, hurricanes are positively correlated with
pretty leaves on the trees, but the leaves do not cause
the hurricanes, and the hurricanes do not cause the
colors in the leaves. Instead, hurricanes are caused
by the surface waters of the Atlantic Ocean hot from
summer sun with cooler air on top, and that situation is caused by the fall weather with also causes the colored leaves. So, colored leaves have a spurious correlation with hurricanes but do not cause them.
Correlation is much more common and much easier to establish than causality. Usually the convincing evidence
of causality if some basic physical connection.
- coldtea 12y ago>Well, then, since now the audience for TV news is comparatively old, we can expect that watching TV news has positive correlation with heart disease. Still watching TV news does not cause heart disease. Well, I'm not so sure. All this sitting to watch TV news, plus all the stress from bad news and fear-mongering...
- TheSpiceIsLife 12y agoWatching (bad) fear monger news doesn't cause stress. Rather, the story you tell yourself about what the news means causes the stress. One person (say, me for example) can watch the (bad) news and have a good laugh (call that a , while another (one of my housemates, for example) will watch the same thing and have a negative response to it.
- coldtea 12y agoWell, that's like "gun's don't kill people, bullets (or holes in vital organs) kill people". Technically correct, but doesn't really take away from the first thing.
- lsd5you 12y agoYour first example is wrong. If you move to a more northerly latitude then it will increase the risk of accidents for you (i.e. there is causation). It is indirect causation, but then ultimately (almost?) all causation is going to be indirect if you take the reduction far enough. That is bad weather doesn't directly cause accidents, but ice on the roads does ... etc.
- graycat 12y agoNo: The bad winter weather, say, ice on the roads, is the cause of the accidents. If happen to have a winter with little or no snow or ice, then the number of auto accidents will go down no matter what the latitude: So, latitude can't be the cause; ice and snow on the roads is the cause. So, if live in a lower latitude, say, closer to the equator, and get a freak winter snow storm with a lot of ice and snow on the roads, the we will see auto accidents in spite of the latitude. For indirect causation, I just said winter weather to try to be brief. But, sure, the cause is the ice and snow on the roads, not just the weather in some vague sense. I was trying to keep the explanation simple, avoid discussing indirect causation, and concentrate on the OP issue of causation versus correlation.