You're looking at Less Wrong's discussion board. This includes all posts, including those that haven't been promoted to the front page yet. For more information, see About Less Wrong.

jmmcd comments on Taking "correlation does not imply causation" back from the internet - Less Wrong Discussion

41 Post author: sixes_and_sevens 03 October 2012 12:18PM

You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.

Article Navigation

Comments (70)

Comments (70)

You are viewing a single comment's thread. Show more comments above.

Comment author: jmmcd 04 October 2012 07:42:49PM 0 points [-]

I acknowledge that using the wrong terminology to the wrong audience will make their eyes glaze over and be counter-productive.

If your audience has any notion whatsoever of what correlation means, they will understand this.

I disagree about that. Until I actually took a course in statistics, I wouldn't have been sure whether the correlation was undefined or just misleading in that case. Again, I agree that not everyone needs this level of precision.

the real issue, which is that the saying should refer to statistical dependence, rather than correlation.

An important issue, but a completely different one. If B said "that is statistical dependence, not causation", wouldn't they be equally wrong in exactly the same way?

Comment author: Kindly 04 October 2012 09:09:50PM *  3 points [-]

If B said "that is statistical dependence, not causation", wouldn't they be equally wrong in exactly the same way?

B would be wrong in the exact same way. So the true reason that B is wrong needs to apply in both cases. On the other hand, appealing to the correlation formula only defeats the correlation version of the argument.

Comment author: jmmcd 04 October 2012 09:38:26PM 3 points [-]

Ah, I see what you mean. You're right.

Powered by Reddit Powered by Reddit