Correlation: Difference between revisions

Correlation (view source)

Revision as of 19:57, 23 October 2019

11 bytes added , 23 October 2019

no edit summary

Amwelladmin

Bureaucrats, Interface administrators, Administrators

82,891

edits

@@ Line 1: / Line 1: @@
 {{a|glossary|
-[[File:Quincunx.jpg|450px|thumb|center|A [[quincunx]], yesterday]]}}The idea, following from Sir Francis Galton’s experiments with a [[quincunx]] and first articulated by statistician Karl Pearson<ref>So [https://slate.com/technology/2012/10/correlation-does-not-imply-causation-how-the-internet-fell-in-love-with-a-stats-class-cliche.html Slate Magazine argues, at any rate.</ref>, that a relationship between two variables could be characterised according to its statistical strength and expressed in numbers, regardless of any perceived causal connection between them.
+[[File:Quincunx.jpg|450px|thumb|center|A [[quincunx]], yesterday]]}}The idea, following from Sir Francis Galton’s experiments with a [[quincunx]] and first articulated by statistician Karl Pearson<ref>So [https://slate.com/technology/2012/10/correlation-does-not-imply-causation-how-the-internet-fell-in-love-with-a-stats-class-cliche.html Slate Magazine] argues, at any rate.</ref>, that a relationship between two variables could be characterised according to its statistical strength and expressed in numbers, regardless of any perceived causal connection between them.
-If one can derive significance from a purely statistical correlation, without any deeper mechanical theory of the universe that might tell us ''why'', we are well on our way to an artificially intelligent future where bots can wipe elderly arses, all bankers are redundant, and it is only a matter of time before Skynet becomes self-aware and starts hunting down random skater kids from the 1990s.
+If one can derive significance from a purely statistical correlation, without any deeper mechanical theory of the universe that might tell us ''why'', we are well on our way to an artificially intelligent future where robots can wipe elderly arses, all bankers are redundant, and it is only a matter of time before Skynet becomes self-aware and starts hunting down random skater kids from the 1990s.
 Well in some cases you can, in some cases you can't<ref>There are whole websites devoted to spurious correlations. Like, well, http://www.spuriouscorrelations.com.</ref>, but - irony upcoming - without a sophisticated theory of causality, it will be hard to tell them apart.
-===Correlation and causation===
+===[[Correlation]] and [[causation]]===
 Now it is true that [[correlation]] doesn’t imply [[causation]], but it doesn’t rule it out either.  And it is certainly true that a ''lack'' of correlation ''does'' imply a ''lack'' of [[causation]].