4 ms·
Your 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 indir
by lsd5you 12y ago
Your 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.