Jump to content

Talk:Correlation does not imply causation

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 50.234.60.130 (talk) at 19:57, 4 December 2020 (→‎Can we put in a PSA that Correlation does imply causation, just not necessarily so?). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Untitled

ATTENTION: This page was moved after a vote at Talk:Correlation implies causation/Page title.

Bells Theorem

Bells Theorem does not disprove local causality. This is the mainstream theory right now. What it does is 'disprove' the existence of a Theory exhibiting locality AND counterfactual definiteness.

This would be much more convincing if you had spelled "Bell's" theorem correctly.50.234.60.130 (talk) 19:52, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Can we put in a PSA that Correlation does imply causation, just not necessarily so?

If I had a dime every time someone told me that correlation does not equal causation as a means to dismiss correlation as evidence... Perhaps a section labelled: "Improper use as an argument" ?

Akiva.avraham (talk) 16:47, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Only if a reliable, published source makes that distinction. Wikipedia does not publish original thought. See § Original research, below. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 21:06, 29 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Correlation does imply causation, but it doesn't mean causation. I think replacing 'imply' in the title by 'mean' would be better. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 01:15, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
An implication in this context is the propositional sense of an implication, see Implicational propositional calculus.GliderMaven (talk) 03:47, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but encyclopædia article titles are expected to be in natural language, not propositional logic. Michael R Bax (talk) 20:59, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The two are not mutually exclusive, as here, where the natural language seems to have incorporated a propositional logic term.GliderMaven (talk) 21:33, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
A better title could be "Correlation is not causation". Karlpoppery (talk) 23:47, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Alternatives:
* "Correlation does not show causation"
* "Correlation does not necessitate causation"
* "Correlation does not prove causation"
* "Correlation does not demonstrate causation"
Michael R Bax (talk) 20:59, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Is it possible to prove causation, if correlation is negative sometimes? 71.94.21.2 (talk) 09:48, 15 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The title is fine if one uses the term "imply" according to standard use in the field of logic (wikt:imply verb use 1 and 2), whereas a natural language use (wikt:imply verb use 3) isn't right. The title "Correlation is not causation" has other problems, because the nature of 'equivalence' here is unclear. Given this, I suggest no page move. Klbrain (talk) 17:08, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but encyclopædia article titles are expected to be in natural language, not propositional logic. As such this title is misleading. In fact I was sent to this page by someone arguing that (in general rather than in logic) correlation does not imply causation! Michael R Bax (talk) 20:59, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Oxford Living Dictionaries: "imply, verb: … 1.1 (of a fact or occurrence) suggest (something) as a logical consequence." Using this definition, correlation does imply causation. Michael R Bax (talk) 20:59, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The reason that Michael R. Bax is 100% wrong here is simply that the phrase "correlation implies causation" can be interpreted in multiple ways. There are many ways to express the important point here clearly in natural language and without being ambiguous. The phrase "correlation implies causation" is not one of them.50.234.60.130 (talk) 19:57, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Move to "Correlation is not causation"

I want to open the discussion on possibly moving this article to "Correlation is not causation". The word "imply" often leads to pointless confusion when referring to this concept, as can be seen in this very talk page. "Is not" is often used and avoids any ambiguity. Does anybody object to this? Karlpoppery (talk) 15:30, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There must be some historical value to CDNIC, and after all it's more precise in a more formal setting, but I for one support reconciling with CINC. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2607:FCC8:620C:A000:4422:9DDB:7D2:C445 (talk) 23:39, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Propositional logic does not belong in article titles. I support this proposal. Michael R Bax (talk) 21:02, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I am opposed to this move:

  • First, the page is about a logical fallacy. It is completely appropriate that the word "imply" is used in its more rigorous sense, in agreement with its use in formal logic.
  • Second, the use of this meaning of "imply" is not some rare, weird, jargony usage. To complain that it amounts to "propositional logic in the title" is silly. It is a standard meaning of the word "imply." It is the most natural meaning for the word to have in the context of pointing out a logical fallacy.
  • Third, the "does not imply" version is more commonly used than the "is not" version.
  • Fourth, some of the core discussion in the article itself would become oddly disconnected from the article title if the change is made. eg: This fallacy is also known as cum hoc ergo propter hoc, Latin for "with this, therefore because of this". The word "therefore" in that version corresponds to the word "imply" in the saying. The fallacy "cum hoc ergo propter hoc" sounds like a subtly different (perhaps vitally different) fallacy than "correlation is not causation."
  • Fifth, "correlation is not causation" is imprecise. What would "correlation is causation" even mean? Correlation is something that is directly observed (for instance, in the most formal setting, by statistical analysis of data in an experiment). Causation is something that is inferred or hypothesized or described by theory, about the events that were observed. It only works if the word "is" is suitably interpreted. It is metaphorical use of language, whereas "does not imply" is a precise, logical statement.
— Gpc62 (talk) 00:05, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with User:Gpc62's points. —Lowellian (reply) 23:29, 13 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Lice in Middle Ages

In reverse causality example 4 is about lice in health and sick people. There is source (https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/guest-blog/of-lice-and-men-an-itchy-history/) which have been added per citation need a year ago. However, I found no mention of fallacy or anything relating belief. I searched topic and found text (http://meaningring.com/2016/04/08/false-causality-by-rolf-dobelli/) that says story comes from German physics professors Hans-Peter Beck-Bornholdt and Hans-Hermann Dubben. And their book (https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=FnpqAgAAQBAJ&dq=L%C3%A4use+ihren+Wirt,+wurde+er+krank+und+bekam+Fieber&hl=fi&source=gbs_navlinks_s) mention lice:

"Für die Bewohner der Neuen Hebriden war es ganz nat¨rlich, von Läusen besidelt zu sein. Verliessen die Läuse ihren Wirt, wurde er krank und bekam Fieber. Die Menschen waren davon überzeugt, dass man auf einem Fieberkranken immer wieder Läuse aussetzen muss, um das Fieber zu vertreiben. Und in den meisten Fällan gab ihnen der Erfolg Recht. Die Läuse lissen sich wieder auf dem Kranken ansiedeln, und wenig später ging es dem Patienten besser. Allerdings wäre es ihm ohne Läuse wahrscheinlich noch besser gegangen, den hier wurden Ursache und Wirkung verwechselt. Die Läuse verlassen den Kranken, weil er Fiebar hat - sie kriegen ganz einfach heisse Füssen. Und wenn die Hitzewelle vorüber ist, kommen sie gerne wieder (Krämer & Trenkler 1996)."

I don't speak German, but machine translation makes it clear that story is about same but happens in New Hebrides (Neuen Hebriden) instead of Middle Ages. If someone is interested in their source, it can be read here: https://idoc.pub/documents/das-digitale-lexikon-der-populren-irrtmer-8x4e7r83j3l3.Ropertto IV (talk) 11:19, 23 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Almost incomprehensible section

This paragraph:

"In logic, the technical use of the word "implies" means "is a Sufficient condition for". This is the meaning intended by statisticians when they say causation is not certain. Indeed, p implies q has the technical meaning of the material conditional: if p then q symbolized as p → q. That is "if circumstance p is true, then q follows." In this sense, it is always correct to say "Correlation does not imply causation." In casual use, the word "implies" loosely means suggests rather than requires."

is almost incomprehensible. What is apparently meant to clarify things makes everything much more difficult to understand.

I hope someone knowledgeable in this subject can rewrite this so that readers can benefit from reading it.

Also: In English we do not capitalize adjectives in the middle of a sentence.50.234.60.130 (talk) 19:50, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Correlation_does_not_imply_causation&oldid=992346681"