If correlation doesn’t imply causation, then what does? (2012)

No amount of correlation seems to imply causation. Suppose there is some event X that always causes two other events, Y and Z. Let's also say that Y and Z are exclusively caused by X. Then Y has a 100% perfect correlation with Z, but ex hypothesi it is not caused by it.

Re: If correlation doesn’t imply causation, then what does? (2012)

#5

Post by kenjackson » Fri, Jul 12, 2013, 4:29 AM UTC

da-bacon wrote: post #3

Also see the follow up with responses from Judea Pearl: http://www.michaelnielsen.org/ddi/guest-post-judea-pearl-on-...

Thanks. This is a treat to see this article. I've long wanted to read Pearl's book on this topic, but haven't had the chance to carve out the time. I'm going to dive into this article now.

Re: If correlation doesn’t imply causation, then what does? (2012)

#6

Post by kevinalexbrown » Fri, Jul 12, 2013, 4:33 AM UTC

Good reading in addition to Pearl himself is via Cosma Shalizi.

Ref list: http://vserver1.cscs.lsa.umich.edu/~crshalizi/notebooks/caus... Chapters: http://www.stat.cmu.edu/~cshalizi/uADA/13/lectures/ch22.pdf http://www.stat.cmu.edu/~cshalizi/uADA/13/lectures/ch23.pdf http://www.stat.cmu.edu/~cshalizi/uADA/13/lectures/ch24.pdf

Incidentally, Shalizi is a great source for going back to the basics. His course at CMU "Advanced Data Analysis from an Elementary Point of View" has course notes and exercises available gratis: http://www.stat.cmu.edu/~cshalizi/uADA/13/. And any time I need to get a reading list, the best place to start is usually his 'notebooks' page.

Re: If correlation doesn’t imply causation, then what does? (2012)

#7

Post by logical42 » Fri, Jul 12, 2013, 4:39 AM UTC

Correlation does imply causation. It just doesn't necessarily establish it as a fact.

Re: If correlation doesn’t imply causation, then what does? (2012)

#8

Post by nsxwolf » Fri, Jul 12, 2013, 4:45 AM UTC

This is seriously in need of a tl;dr

Re: If correlation doesn’t imply causation, then what does? (2012)

#9

Post by JoshTriplett » Fri, Jul 12, 2013, 4:48 AM UTC

logical42 wrote: post #7

Correlation does imply causation. It just doesn't necessarily establish it as a fact.

Correlation correlates with causation, but "correlation correlates with causation" doesn't imply "correlation implies causation".

Re: If correlation doesn’t imply causation, then what does? (2012)

#10

Post by logical42 » Fri, Jul 12, 2013, 4:56 AM UTC

JoshTriplett wrote: post #9

logical42 wrote: post #7

Correlation does imply causation. It just doesn't necessarily establish it as a fact.

Correlation correlates with causation, but "correlation correlates with causation" doesn't imply "correlation implies causation".

Depends what you mean by 'imply'.