I’ve seen this referenced a lot, especially with psychology, but can someone explain what exactly it means? How does correlation not imply causation? Sometimes, does correlation ever imply causation?
In: 160
Imagine this: When ice cream sales go up, so does the number of drowning incidents. Does that mean ice cream causes drowning? Nope. It’s a coincidence.
See, correlation means two things happening together, but it doesn’t prove one causes the other. There might be a hidden factor, like hot weather. Hot weather makes people buy ice cream and swim more, leading to both ice cream sales and drowning incidents going up. But ice cream doesn’t make people drown.
Now, sometimes correlation can hint at causation, but we need more evidence. Like with smoking and lung cancer. High correlation led researchers to investigate further, and they found that smoking does indeed cause lung cancer.
So, correlation is like a clue, but it doesn’t confirm causation on its own. We need to dig deeper, do experiments, and gather more info to be sure. It’s a reminder that things aren’t always what they seem at first glance.
Everyone who drinks water…. will die. This is correlation not implying causation.
Everyone who drinks heavily irradiated water, dies. This is a correlation implying causation.
The phrase doesn’t mean it can never. It means that it often doesn’t.
Latest Answers