4 ms·

"Correlation is not causation", while true, is becoming a very tired response to pretty much any suggested phenomenon here on HN. And it shuts down often worthw

"Correlation is not causation", while true, is becoming a very tired response to pretty much any suggested phenomenon here on HN. And it shuts down often worthwhile "what if...?" conversations. This is especially well put: "We cannot rely on correlation alone, then. But insisting on absolute proof of causation is too exacting a standard (arguably, an impossible one). Between those two extremes, where does the right balance lie between trusting correlations and looking for evidence of causation?"

raverbashing 12y ago
That's what I was going to point out "We should respect correlation but it is a clue to a deeper truth, not the end of our investigations." It is a clue. It might mean nothing but it might lead onto something. But of course a lot of people think they're smarter by quoting a phrase. "Anecdote is not data" but it was anecdotes about people getting cowpox not getting smallpox that led to the development of immunization.
- brianmcc 12y ago
  Exactly. Perhaps it's time for a new catchphrase: "Correlation not being causation does not require dismissal" But it might just lead to: "Correlation not being causation not requiring dismissal does not imply truthiness" and we're back where we started :-)
nextw33k 12y ago
"Correlation is not causation" is still a valid comment to make, the original article says that deeper questions need to be asked. However most of the time a news report just reports a single correlation. That's when those comments come out, its statistically insignificant to have one source/correlation and report it as news. Show me two correlations or more and I'll take more notice. For example: 1, Smoking causes cancer 2, Smokers have a higher rate of lung cancer 3, Heavy smokers are more likely to develop lung cancer sooner than casual smokers 4, Smokers that quit lower their chances of cancer As a set they make an valid argument, however individually they are weak.
serve_yay 12y ago
I'm getting tired of seeing "correlation is not causation" thrown around all the time, too. It's so easy and smart-sounding, saying it is guilt-free and feels good too.
pc2g4d 12y ago
It probably is too high a standard. But perhaps it is also an indication that our ability in proving causality needs to be enhanced. It's incredibly difficult---can it be made easier?

raverbashing 12y ago

That's what I was going to point out "We should respect correlation but it is a clue to a deeper truth, not the end of our investigations." It is a clue. It might mean nothing but it might lead onto something. But of course a lot of people think they're smarter by quoting a phrase. "Anecdote is not data" but it was anecdotes about people getting cowpox not getting smallpox that led to the development of immunization.

brianmcc 12y ago
Exactly. Perhaps it's time for a new catchphrase: "Correlation not being causation does not require dismissal" But it might just lead to: "Correlation not being causation not requiring dismissal does not imply truthiness" and we're back where we started :-)

nextw33k 12y ago

"Correlation is not causation" is still a valid comment to make, the original article says that deeper questions need to be asked. However most of the time a news report just reports a single correlation. That's when those comments come out, its statistically insignificant to have one source/correlation and report it as news. Show me two correlations or more and I'll take more notice. For example: 1, Smoking causes cancer 2, Smokers have a higher rate of lung cancer 3, Heavy smokers are more likely to develop lung cancer sooner than casual smokers 4, Smokers that quit lower their chances of cancer As a set they make an valid argument, however individually they are weak.

serve_yay 12y ago

I'm getting tired of seeing "correlation is not causation" thrown around all the time, too. It's so easy and smart-sounding, saying it is guilt-free and feels good too.

pc2g4d 12y ago

It probably is too high a standard. But perhaps it is also an indication that our ability in proving causality needs to be enhanced. It's incredibly difficult---can it be made easier?