>> I thought correlation doesn't PROVE causation. Chris wrote... The problem here is in the explication in the word "imply." For logicians, implication is a *logical* implication. For instance, in a valid argument, premises *imply* the conclusion. That is, it is *logically impossible* for the premises to be true and the conclusion false. In this context, implication is the (logical) equivalent of proof. (SNIP)
In more more casual usage, people take "imply" to mean something weaker such as "suggest." The fact of the matter is that correlation tells one virtually nothing about causation at all (SNIP) Aubyn writes... I appreciate the background Chris supplies here, but I think it is also more simple than this (as Chris's subsequent comments "imply"). We tell our students and our selves that correlation does not imply causation - and we really do mean *imply* even in the casual sense of suggest, and not *prove*. When we observe a correlation between A and B, we really do not want to assume that a causal relationship is any more likely than any other possible explanation for the relationship. Indeed, if anything it is our usual stance to assume that the causal relationship is less likely than other explanations. **************************************************** Aubyn Fulton, Ph.D. Professor of Psychology Chair, Behavioral Science Department Pacific Union College Angwin, CA 94508 Office: 707-965-6536 Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***************************************************** --- You are currently subscribed to tips as: [email protected] To unsubscribe send a blank email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
