Does correlation equal causation?

Question

How can you ignore the celestial driver?

http://www.gsajournals.org/archive/1052-5173/13/7/pdf/i1052-5173-13-7-4.pdf

Answer 1

If two variables, say A and B are highly correlated there are at least three possibilities.
1. A causes B or B causes A
2. A and B are both caused by some third variable.
3. It is a coincidence.

When scientists test a correlation they can often rule out (3) by repeating an experiment many times. The chances that a coincidence would repeat every time are very small.

Ruling out (2) depends on very careful experimental design. Scientists try to isolate the system from all possible external influences.

Repetition and experimental design are difficult to achieve when your laboratory is the whole earth.

Answer 2

Many things are correlated, but that does not prove causation. Statisticians do show causation, they show correlation. Causation is subjective.

The article that follows does try to show causation:

Brighter Sun => higher thermal flux + solar wind => muted CRF => less low-level cloud cover => less albedo => warmer climate

I'd say that the celestial driver must be taken into account when studying climate change. Most experts in the field believe that CO2 due human activities is the cause of climate change. Just because it is correlated with another phenomenon does not mean humans are off the hook.

Statisticians normally take into account significant independent variables. By the way, I highly recommend the movie "An Inconvenient Truth" narrated by former almost President Al Gore.

Answer 3

You are citing a technical journal. In that context, correlation has a very specific meaning. Two important points. First the statistical usage is actually "coefficient of correlation", to express the degree of relationship between two variables which are being measured or observed. Second, every statistics book will tell you that even if the correlation is high, no causal relationship is implied.

Answer 4

you're impying something that no good logician -- forget religionist -- could concur in, extremely, that in spite of a correlation, there is in basic terms one interpretation. think of approximately it, 2 issues that correlate could desire to be brought about by utilising a 0.33 ingredient, and a few issues concerning 3 correlated issues do no longer even enable reason and consequence as an answer, eg, the dating between gas quantity (V), rigidity (P), and temperature (T) could be expressed by utilising the suited gas regulation: PV / T = consistent. Now, what reasons what ? This has been admirably defined by utilising the great Catholic logician Xavier Zubiri. advantageous have been given ya there...makes my day.

Answer 5

I don't know anything about that article but correlation does not equal causation.

Many heroin users started smoking pot.However, pot smoking doesn't lead to heroin use.
Many alcoholics started out drinking breast milk. Breast milk doesn't lead to alcoholism.