= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
IlyaShpitser comments on Taking "correlation does not imply causation" back from the internet - Less Wrong Discussion
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)
Agreed. It's just a pet peeve because the concept of "correlation" does not cut at the seams here. I was certainly not faulting you (as your post was likely a response to the slate article, which used the term "correlation" as well).
I was going to mention that "correlation does not imply causation" sounds snappier, but the more I play around with it, "association does not imply causation" seems somewhat more aesthetically appealing.
doesnotimply.com is also free, shorter, less loaded (in the way you describe above), and has an obvious logo to go with it (=/=>). If I go ahead with it, I might use that instead.
Somehow, the "correlation does not imply causation (but it furtively suggests it, etc)" idea is linked in my brain with the "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence (but it is if you're a Bayesian)" idea.
At the risk of diluting the original good idea, maybe doesnotimply.com could incorporate the latter also.
My vote goes to doesnotimp.ly