Er... no. Okay, look, here's the definition I provided from an earlier comment:
By "real correlation" I mean a correlation that is not simply an artifact of your statistical analysis, but is actually "present in the data", so to speak.
You seemed to understand this well enough to engage with it, even going so far as to ask me how I would distinguish between the two (answer: redundancy), but now you're saying that I'm using "real" to mean "matching my current ideas of what's likely"? If there's something in the quote that you don't understand, please feel free to ask, but right now I'm feeling a bit bewildered by the fact that you seem to have entirely forgotten that definition.
See also: spurious correlation.
Sigh.
All measured correlations are "actually present in the data". If you take two data series and calculate their correlation it would be a number. This measured (or sample) correlation is certainly real and not fake. The question is what does it represent.
You claim the ability to decide -- on a completely unclear to me basis -- that sometimes this measured correlation represents something (and then you call it "real") and sometimes it represents nothing (and then you call it "not real"). "Redundancy" is not an adeq...
Another month, another rationality quotes thread. The rules are: