Importantly, the converse of Berkeley's famous dictum is also true - lack of correlation does not imply the absence of causation. For complex systems, causally coupled variables can alternate between periods of positive, negative, and zero correlations. So, while I am inclined to agree that correlation can be useful for suggesting hypotheses, it is a blunt instrument in the search for causal connections.
Steve On Oct 9, 2012, at 12:24 PM, Lee Dyer <[email protected]> wrote: > My favorite *introduction* to this vast topic can be found in the first few > chapters of Bill Shipley's short book, Cause and Correlation in Biology > (2000). A quote from his book: > "In fact, with few exceptions, correlation does imply > causation. If we observe a systematic relationship between two variables, and > we have ruled out the likelihood that this is simply due to a random > coincidence, then something > must be causing this relationship." > > ******************************************************* > Lee Dyer > Biology Dept. 0314 > UNR 1664 N Virginia St > Reno, NV 89557 > > > > OR > > > > 585 Robin St > Reno, NV 89509 > > > > Email: [email protected] > Web: www.caterpillars.org > phone: 504-220-9391 (cell) > 775-784-1360 (office) > > > > >> Date: Tue, 9 Oct 2012 10:57:34 -0500 >> From: [email protected] >> Subject: Re: [ECOLOG-L] correlation v. causation >> To: [email protected] >> >> 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 >
