= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
RichardHughes comments on Taking "correlation does not imply causation" back from the internet - Less Wrong
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
= 783df68a0f980790206b9ea87794c5b6)
Loading…= b715d02e85f7b3b4ae65ca3d3e450868)
Subscribe to RSS Feed
Powered by Reddit
= f037147d6e6c911a85753b9abdedda8d)
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
Comments (70)
Disagree. Our target audience - humans - rarely if ever thinks of 'correlation' in terms of its mathematical definition and I suspect would be put off by an attempt to do so.
This is entirely true - as a mere human, my interest plummeted at "covariance", and I'd still like to think I'm SOMEWHAT equipped to handle correlation/causation. Just not numerically. So, as a roughly average human, I say your suspicions are correct.
The point still applies. What do you mean by “correlation” --formally or informally-- when one (or both) of the variables is constant across the population?
The specific fake argument used is flawed because of that. When people make the correlation-causation error, how often are they doing it based off of a variable that's constant across the population? Do people ever really develop 'drinking water causes x' beliefs?
It's a valid point and very true, but I suspect that it isn't applicable to the issue at hand.