No they don’t. This is what people who don’t deeply understand statistics but want to sound smart say all the time. Correlation implies that you can consider causation, but doesn’t prove it. But people use that phrase as if correlation disproves causation. That’s plain stupidhttps://twitter.com/LeviABx/status/1244970629926998016 …
-
-
By the way, the original tweeter also says he was joking! I'm keeping this thread up because that phrase is indeed so common.https://twitter.com/LeviABx/status/1246508326172704769 …
Show this thread -
For weeks, I've been hearing "but correlation does not imply causation" re:masks despite that in this case, yes, yes, it does: we have coverage and a control (Japan, screwing up everything but masks and it's not Lombardy or NYC); analytic reasons (virus); priors (good studies).
Show this thread
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
If you square a correlation coefficient, you get an effect size which at the very least implies some causation
-
In the social sciences, people perceiving correlation implying causation is a big issue because the correlation coefficients are small, as Walter Mischel discusses, but this is less true in the harder sciences.
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
Both limit cases (no causation on one and a 1to1 correlation on the other) are equally bad. Both miscalculate the probability space opening the door to potentially disasterous effects.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
I’m so lost bc I’ve literally only ever heard correlation does not EQUAL causation, which like is true. When did people start saying imply?? Imply and equal are not synonymous with each other
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.