Correlation is not causation. I listen to this but reserve judgement until further research is done.
CC
“Correlation is not causation.”
Correlation, causation discussion
While it’s true that correlation does not always imply causation, it’s also important to recognize that correlation can often provide valuable insights and suggest potential causal relationships.
1. **Directionality**: In some cases, the correlation between two variables can indicate a causal relationship. For example, smoking and lung cancer are correlated, and extensive research has shown that smoking causes lung cancer.
2. **Consistency with Theory**: Correlation that aligns with established scientific theories can provide strong evidence for causation. For instance, if a new drug is correlated with improved health outcomes, and its mechanism of action aligns with known biological processes, it strengthens the case for causation.
3. **Temporal Relationship**: Establishing a temporal relationship between variables, where the cause precedes the effect, can bolster the argument for causation. Observing changes in one variable before changes in another can suggest a causal link.
4. **Replication**: Correlation observed across multiple studies, conducted by different researchers using diverse methodologies, increases confidence in a causal relationship. Replication helps rule out alternative explanations and strengthens the case for causation.
5. **Controlled Experiments**: While not always feasible or ethical, controlled experiments allow researchers to manipulate variables and establish causation more definitively. Correlation observed within controlled experiments can be strong evidence for causation.
Therefore, while correlation alone may not prove causation, it can serve as a starting point for further investigation and, when combined with other evidence, can support robust conclusions about causal relationships.