How is the motto "Correlation does not imply Causation" a lie? How is it a useful lie?

Answer 1

It's not a lie, it makes perfect sense.

I leave my house in the morning at the same time my neighbor walks his dog. This happens every morning, so the two events correlate to each other. However, one event does not CAUSE the other - I don't leave because he walks his dog, and he doesn't walk his dog because I leave. I leave to go to work and he walks the dog so it can poop - those are the real causes, which are totally unrelated.

There could be events which are both correlated and cause each other (or one event causes the other). For example, I get up when the sun rises; it could be said that the sun causes me to get up, but I don't cause the sun to rise. So there is both correlation and causation there.

So this sentence CAN be true, but it isn't ALWAYS true.

Answer 2

It is true but is usually ignored by those with something to sell or those who don't understand science or cause & effect.

Consider most of the sensational articles you see about how scientists just did a study and found that those who eat organic foods are healthier than those who do not. There may be a correlation seen there in the study but the researchers never test whether that particular diet is what caused the healthiness. They typically do not check (or care) whether those eating organic also made other efforts to be healthy, even though those efforts could be the real cause.

So I think the question is backwards. The statement is not a lie but it assuming it is true is the very useful wrong- supposition.

Answer 3

As the others have said, it is not a lie. If it were re-worded as, "Correlation never implies causation", then it would be a lie, but with the original wording it is undeniably true. All it takes is one case where there is correlation but no causation to make it true.

Answer 4

HAHAHA, I shall find you in class
nice, but definitely something easy to track for "cheating" on a mid term:P