82,247
edits
Correlation: Difference between revisions
no edit summary
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}} | |||