Unfortunately there are too many useful rhetorical devices in the list, devices that serve a purpose. Ironically, the list starts off with "correlation is not causation," an expression that in most cases is raised for very good reasons -- for example, any popular science story that includes the word "linked" but without adequate qualifiers. If more people were science-literate, these platitudes wouldn't be necessary.…
"Correlation is not causation" started useful but has become less useful the more cliched it became. And OP is right that it's particularly useless among people who've already heard it. The whole reason people felt the need to mention "correlation is not causation" is that correlation is evidence of causation. Some people seem to think this catchphrase means the two are unrelated which is also false.
No, without evidence that assumption is false. Correlation can only be evidence for an unexplained link, and even that is often undermined by desperate researchers' predisposition to offer any detected correlation as though it couldn't result from chance.
Given A and B, absent a plausible causative mechanism, and a correlation between them, possible explanations include:
* Chance -- quick, publish!
* B caused A.
* A caused B.
* An unevaluated cause C connects A and B.
If this seems to go to extremes in skepticism, well, remember that skepticism of new results is -- or should be -- the scientist's job.
Example: http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v483/n7391/full/483531a...
Title: "Drug development: Raise standards for preclinical cancer research"
Quote: "Fifty-three papers were deemed 'landmark' studies (see 'Reproducibility of research findings'). It was acknowledged from the outset that some of the data might not hold up, because papers were deliberately selected that described something completely new, such as fresh approaches to targeting cancers or alternative clinical uses for existing therapeutics. Nevertheless, scientific findings were confirmed in only 6 (11%) cases. Even knowing the limitations of preclinical research, this was a shocking result."
> Some people seem to think this catchphrase means the two are unrelated which is also false.
But without evidence, without a rigorous scientific evaluation, that's a scientist's default assumption, an assumption that relies on the null hypothesis. Using the null hypothesis, one assumes there's nothing there, that the association between A and B results from chance, then looks for reliable evidence that might lead us to a different conclusion.