What's this nonsense I hear that correlation doesn't imply causation? Of course it does. If there is correlation between two variables, there must be causation somewhere. Granted, the correlation alone doesn't show which of the three types of causation it is (A causes B, B causes A, or C causes A and B*), but causation has to be there, if the correlation isn't spurious. It would be correct to say that correlation doesn't indicate the kind of causation.
![]()
In this case, causation is likely that those who've gone to the moon are alive, and those who are alive have eaten, and those who have eaten have likely eaten chicken - particularly likely if you're among those who have been in training to to go the moon.
More.
* All three cases could have intermediate variables, of course.![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
In this case, causation is likely that those who've gone to the moon are alive, and those who are alive have eaten, and those who have eaten have likely eaten chicken - particularly likely if you're among those who have been in training to to go the moon.
More.
* All three cases could have intermediate variables, of course.
