Hi y'all,
If I remember the quote correctly, it said "Correlation is not causation."
It did not say that it didn't imply causation. The distinction is crucial,
eh? (It appears that my initial response to the initial question didn't make
its way to Ecolog, possibly because I neglected to approve it or because it
was rejected.
WT
PS: Correlation is not in opposition to (v.) causation.
Let us not jump to contusions.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Devan McGranahan" <[email protected]>
To: <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, October 09, 2012 8:57 AM
Subject: Re: [ECOLOG-L] correlation v. causation
Hi Shelley, others,
Slate recently had a great article on correlation and causation with a
historical perspective.
My favorite line: "'No, correlation does not imply causation, but it
sure as hell provides a hint."
http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/science/2012/10/correlation_does_not_imply_causation_how_the_internet_fell_in_love_with_a_stats_class_clich_.html
"Having nothing better to do, I set fire to the prairie."
-- Francis Chadron, 1839, Fort Clark, North Dakota
http://www.devanmcgranahan.info
-----
No virus found in this message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
Version: 10.0.1427 / Virus Database: 2441/5317 - Release Date: 10/08/12
