In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
EugeneGall <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>Andrew Morse wrote:
>>>Who was the first to say "Correlation does not imply causation" in so many
>>>words? I know that the idea dates back to David Hume, but Hume did his
>>>work about a century before the term "correlation
>Andrew Morse wrote:
>
>>Who was the first to say "Correlation does not imply causation" in so many
>>words? I know that the idea dates back to David Hume, but Hume did his
>>work about a century before the term "correlation" acquired its modern
>>statitical meaning.
>
>It certainly wasn't Hume,
Andrew Morse wrote:
>Who was the first to say "Correlation does not imply causation" in so many
>words? I know that the idea dates back to David Hume, but Hume did his
>work about a century before the term "correlation" acquired its modern
>statitical meaning.
It certainly wasn't Hume, who's ar
Stu wrote:
>
> "Silvert, Henry" wrote:
>
> > Might I go one step further and point out the correlation does not establish
> > a causal relationship primarily because it does not point to directionality,
> > at least not without a working hypothesis and some background support.
>
> Absolutely. Wi
--- Begin Message ---
"Silvert, Henry" wrote:
> Might I go one step further and point out the correlation does not establish
> a causal relationship primarily because it does not point to directionality,
> at least not without a working hypothesis and some background support.
Absolutely. With
Andrew Morse <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Who was the first to say "Correlation does not imply causation" in so many
Kendall and Stuart says "...Yule (1926) frightened statisticians by adducing
cases of very high correlations which were obviously not causal...", in
time-series data, as it happens
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Andrew Morse) wrote in message
news:<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>...
> Who was the first to say "Correlation does not imply causation" in so many
> words? I know that the idea dates back to David Hume, but Hume did his
> work about a century before the term "correlation" acquired its mo
Nice example. Perhaps I should have said "partial (and not necessarily
linear) correlation."
- Original Message -
From: "jim clark" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Tuesday, December 04, 2001 1:37 PM
Subject: Re: Who said "Correlat
Hi
On 3 Dec 2001, Karl L. Wuensch wrote:
> I think that phrase has created much misunderstanding. I try
> to convince my students that correlation is necessary but not
> sufficient for establishing a causal relationship.
And I teach that NEITHER presence NOR absence of _simple_
correlation can
3rd. Avenue
New York, NY 10022
Tel. No.: (212) 339-0438
Fax No.: (212) 836-3825
> -Original Message-
> From: Karl L. Wuensch [SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Monday, December 03, 2001 9:51 PM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: Who said "Correlation does
I think that phrase has created much
misunderstanding. I try to convince my students that correlation is
necessary but not sufficient for establishing a causal
relationship.
Karl L. Wuensch, Department of
Psychology,East Carolina University, Greenville NC
27858-4353Voice: 252-328-4102
I don't recall who coined that phrase. However, it is frequently misused.
Sometimes it is used to put down "bad researchers" who use correlational
methods (including ordinary regression) and "good researchers" who use ANOVA
methods. Sometimes it is used to mean that if there is correlation, causa
I don't recall who coined that phrase. However, it is frequently misused.
Sometimes it is used to put down "bad researchers" who use correlational
methods (including ordinary regression) and "good researchers" who use ANOVA
methods. Sometimes it is used to mean that if there is correlation, causa
I don't recall who coined that phrase. However, it is frequently misused.
Sometimes it is used to put down "bad researchers" who use correlational
methods (including ordinary regression) and "good researchers" who use ANOVA
methods. Sometimes it is used to mean that if there is correlation, causa
Who was the first to say "Correlation does not imply causation" in so many
words? I know that the idea dates back to David Hume, but Hume did his
work about a century before the term "correlation" acquired its modern
statitical meaning. I've seen many sources that crdit Karl Pearson with
banishi
15 matches
Mail list logo
