Correlation: Difference between revisions
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) (Created page with "The idea, 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...") |
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
The idea, 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 | The idea, 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 strength and expressed in numbers. | ||
Now it is true that [[Correlation doesn’t imply causation]], but it doesn’t rule it out either. [[All other things being equal]], a correlation is more likely to evidence a causation than a ''lack'' of correlation, right? | Now it is true that [[Correlation doesn’t imply causation]], but it doesn’t rule it out either. [[All other things being equal]], a [[correlation]] is more likely to evidence a [[causation]] than a ''lack'' of correlation, right? This 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.” | ||
{{sa}} | |||
*[[Contract]]ual [[causation]] | |||
{{ref}} | |||
Revision as of 11:55, 13 June 2019
The idea, first articulated by statistician Karl Pearson[1], that a relationship between two variables could be characterised according to its strength and expressed in numbers.
Now it is true that Correlation doesn’t imply causation, but it doesn’t rule it out either. All other things being equal, a correlation is more likely to evidence a causation than a lack of correlation, right? This is one of those logical canards, as Monty Python put it, “universal affirmatives can only be partially converted: all of Alma Cogan is dead, but only some of the class of dead people are Alma Cogan.”
See also
References
- ↑ 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.