82,952
edits
Correlation: Difference between revisions
no edit summary
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary Tags: Mobile edit Mobile web edit |
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary Tags: Mobile edit Mobile web edit |
||
| (6 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown) | |||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
{{a|glossary| | {{a|glossary|{{Image|Quincunx|jpg|A [[quincunx]], yesterday}}}}{{Quote| | ||
{{Script|Triago}}: If substance is family then form is the state <br> | |||
A contrivance, precariously stack’d <br> | |||
Bids yield our resilient bonds<br> | |||
To th’escapements of voguish clockery <br> | |||
To rudely declare in the interests of nation<br> | |||
A final victory of correlation over causation<br> | |||
{{Script|Nuncle}}: But the cleverest contraption rusts<br> | |||
Upon immersion in snot.<br> | |||
: —{{Buchstein}}, {{br|The Victory of Form over Substance}}}} | |||
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 [[Causation|causal]] connection between them''. | |||
If one can derive significance from a purely statistical correlation without a deeper mechanical theory of the universe that might tell us ''why'', we are well on our way to an [[Artificial intelligence|artificially intelligent]] future where [[Chatbot|robot]]s can wipe elderly arses, [[Rumours of our demise are greatly exaggerated - technology article|all bankers are redundant]] (good, right?), [[A World Without Work: Technology, Automation, and How We Should Respond - Book Review|so is everyone else]] (''not'' so good?) 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 a deeper mechanical theory of the universe that might tell us ''why'', we are well on our way to an [[Artificial intelligence|artificially intelligent]] future where [[Chatbot|robot]]s can wipe elderly arses, [[Rumours of our demise are greatly exaggerated - technology article|all bankers are redundant]] (good, right?), [[A World Without Work: Technology, Automation, and How We Should Respond - Book Review|so is everyone else]] (''not'' so good?) and it is only a matter of time before Skynet becomes self-aware and starts hunting down random skater kids from the 1990s. | ||
''If''. | ''[[Spartan if|If]]''. | ||
But, in some cases you ''can'' derive a significance; 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. That is to say, a bare [[correlation]] won’t tell you whether there is a causal arrow at all, much less — if there is — which way it flows. | But, in some cases you ''can'' derive a significance; 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. That is to say, a bare [[correlation]] won’t tell you whether there is a causal arrow at all, much less — if there is — which way it flows. | ||
| Line 10: | Line 20: | ||
“Correlation”<ref>“A mutual relationship or connection between two or more things.”</ref> ''ought to be'' a synonym for “mere coincidence”<ref>“A remarkable concurrence of events or circumstances without apparent causal connection”.</ref> though in its more fashionable usages, especially among [[big data]] freaks, this tends to get — well — ''buried'' in the [[signal-to-noise ratio|noise]]. There may be something profound, reflexive and ironic about this, but it’s too early in the morning to figure out out. At any rate, the more data you have the, the worse your [[signal-to-noise ratio|signal]], and the more chanting “[[correlation does not imply causation]]” in a sing-song voice whenever anyone cites a correlation will annoy the ''hell'' out of [[big data]] freaks — which is all the more reason to do it. | “Correlation”<ref>“A mutual relationship or connection between two or more things.”</ref> ''ought to be'' a synonym for “mere coincidence”<ref>“A remarkable concurrence of events or circumstances without apparent causal connection”.</ref> though in its more fashionable usages, especially among [[big data]] freaks, this tends to get — well — ''buried'' in the [[signal-to-noise ratio|noise]]. There may be something profound, reflexive and ironic about this, but it’s too early in the morning to figure out out. At any rate, the more data you have the, the worse your [[signal-to-noise ratio|signal]], and the more chanting “[[correlation does not imply causation]]” in a sing-song voice whenever anyone cites a correlation will annoy the ''hell'' out of [[big data]] freaks — which is all the more reason to do it. | ||
=== | ===Correlation and causation=== | ||
Now it is true that [[correlation]] doesn’t imply [[causation]], but it doesn’t rule it out either. | Now it is true that [[correlation]] doesn’t imply [[causation]], but it doesn’t rule it out either. And it is easy to infer from a ''lack'' of correlation that there is no [[causation]]. | ||
But hold your horses. | |||
“[[All other things being equal]], a [[correlation]] is more likely to evidence a [[causation]] than a ''lack'' of correlation”, is one of those logical canards. As Monty Python put it, “[[universal affirmative]]s can only be partially converted: all of Alma Cogan is dead, but only some of the class of dead people are Alma Cogan.” | “[[All other things being equal]], a [[correlation]] is more likely to evidence a [[causation]] than a ''lack'' of correlation”, is one of those logical canards. As Monty Python put it, “[[universal affirmative]]s can only be partially converted: all of Alma Cogan is dead, but only some of the class of dead people are Alma Cogan.” | ||
| Line 30: | Line 42: | ||
Glomming on to a satisfying correlation dodges the hard question, which is, “what possible ''better evidence'' of true causation — a “necesary connexion” between cause and effect — ''could there be''?” | Glomming on to a satisfying correlation dodges the hard question, which is, “what possible ''better evidence'' of true causation — a “necesary connexion” between cause and effect — ''could there be''?” | ||
This is not a new conundrum. It was first posed by {{author|David Hume}}, in 1739 — | This is not a new conundrum. It was first posed by {{author|David Hume}}, in 1739 — “necessary connexion” was his phrase — and he answered it in the negative. There is no better evidence of causation. | ||
But, fortunately for the interests of narrow-minded righteousness and [[determinism]], Hume allegedly once met someone who was racist, so we can entirely ignore him and the quarter of a millennium of epistemology that he spurred. Plus, he was a Scot.<ref>Disclosure for humourless [[libtard]]s: deliberate irony, intended as a joke. | But, fortunately for the interests of narrow-minded righteousness and [[determinism]], Hume allegedly once met someone who was racist, so we can entirely ignore him and the quarter of a millennium of epistemology that he spurred. Plus, he was a Scot.<ref>Disclosure for humourless [[libtard]]s: deliberate irony, intended as a joke.</ref> | ||
{{sa}} | {{sa}} | ||
| Line 40: | Line 52: | ||
{{ref}} | {{ref}} | ||
{{Friday Philosophy|Correlation}} | |||