Humor Animation movie meme 11 Jun 2010 I haven’t done one of these for a while: Animation Movie Meme (From here, via Siris) X what you’ve seen O what you saw some but not all of Bold what you particularly liked Strike-through what you hated CLASSIC DISNEY ——————————- [ X ] 101 Dalmatians (1961) [ X ]… Read More
Ecology and Biodiversity Good news, and bad news… 17 Apr 2008 First, the good news. The inestimable John van Whye has added, with the help of his team of course, 90,000 scanned images of Darwin’s journals, manuscripts and letters. Now the bad news. The Utrecht Herbarium is closing, and no plans have been made to store and make available its collection… Read More
I didn’t forget. It’s bad manners to copy everything of someone else’s work. There has to be a reason for people to go visit.
This “correlation does not imply causation” thing has got out of hand. At least in the form it’s normally quoted. Because correlation does imply causation; just not the source of causation.
John Conway @ 1 The number of fridges sold correlates with the number of washing machines sold. This does not show that one causes the other.
John Conway @ 1 The number of fridges sold correlates with the number of washing machines sold. This does not show that one causes the other.
Because correlation does imply causation; just not the source of causation. No it doesn’t. I can pick two time series, say temperature in Sydney, and the price of an unrelated stock (e.g. the Southern Norwegian Peanut Pickling Company) that are strongly correlated, but there need not be any causation. I just need to make enough comparisons until I find one. KATZ – there is probably a causative element there: general wealth causes both fridge and washing machine sales to increase. That’s John Conway’s point, which is correct, but not sufficient to make the general claim he’s making.
Because correlation does imply causation; just not the source of causation. No it doesn’t. I can pick two time series, say temperature in Sydney, and the price of an unrelated stock (e.g. the Southern Norwegian Peanut Pickling Company) that are strongly correlated, but there need not be any causation. I just need to make enough comparisons until I find one. KATZ – there is probably a causative element there: general wealth causes both fridge and washing machine sales to increase. That’s John Conway’s point, which is correct, but not sufficient to make the general claim he’s making.
Because correlation does imply causation; just not the source of causation. No it doesn’t. I can pick two time series, say temperature in Sydney, and the price of an unrelated stock (e.g. the Southern Norwegian Peanut Pickling Company) that are strongly correlated, but there need not be any causation. I just need to make enough comparisons until I find one. KATZ – there is probably a causative element there: general wealth causes both fridge and washing machine sales to increase. That’s John Conway’s point, which is correct, but not sufficient to make the general claim he’s making.
Because correlation does imply causation; just not the source of causation. No it doesn’t. I can pick two time series, say temperature in Sydney, and the price of an unrelated stock (e.g. the Southern Norwegian Peanut Pickling Company) that are strongly correlated, but there need not be any causation. I just need to make enough comparisons until I find one. KATZ – there is probably a causative element there: general wealth causes both fridge and washing machine sales to increase. That’s John Conway’s point, which is correct, but not sufficient to make the general claim he’s making.
Because correlation does imply causation; just not the source of causation. No it doesn’t. I can pick two time series, say temperature in Sydney, and the price of an unrelated stock (e.g. the Southern Norwegian Peanut Pickling Company) that are strongly correlated, but there need not be any causation. I just need to make enough comparisons until I find one. KATZ – there is probably a causative element there: general wealth causes both fridge and washing machine sales to increase. That’s John Conway’s point, which is correct, but not sufficient to make the general claim he’s making.
While it’s true that correlation doesn’t imply causation, one of my gripes is that people throw around “correlation doesn’t imply causation” to undermine reaching the obvious conclusion. For example, smoking companies couldn’t deny the fact that smokers got lung cancer at a higher rate than the general population. So, they threw-out the “correlation doesn’t imply causation” meme to drag their feet, avoid all responsibility, and undermine the belief that smoking causes cancer. That’s my gripe with people throwing out the “correlation doesn’t imply causation” as a knee-jerk reaction – people often use it to drag their feet and avoid admitting the obvious.