3 ms·
> "correlation does not equal causation" I hate this phrase so much because it's so often used to imply that "because there is correlation it means there can't
by minikites 12y ago
> "correlation does not equal causation"
I hate this phrase so much because it's so often used to imply that "because there is correlation it means there can't be causation"
> Tufte suggests that the shortest true statement that can be made about causality and correlation is one of the following:
> "Empirically observed covariation is a necessary but not sufficient condition for causality."
> "Correlation is not causation but it sure is a hint."
- Dylan16807 12y agoSo often used to imply what? I've seen a lot of people ignoring correlation when they really shouldn't, I have never in my life seen them using the implication backwards. How often do you see that?
- minikites 12y agoI might be misunderstanding what you're saying, but I see exactly what I mentioned in the parent comment, which is why I wrote my comment.
- Dylan16807 12y agoI don't see it like that. Large claims require large proof, that's all I see in the comment. Shocking numbers need more investigation, and need a big grain of salt, but that is still taking the result as weak support of causality, not a counter to it. I think you're reading "skepticism" as "the opposite is likely" and I'm reading it as "assign low weight".