[Alamo-Girl]

Thank you so much for your reply and your encouragements, dear cornelis!

curiosity is correct in that a “correlation coefficient” in statistics and probability theory is a numerical measure of the strength of a relationship between two random variables.

That is one meaning. However, in the context I was using it - “correlation is not causation” is an expression of a logical fallacy as follows:

Correlation implies causation (logical fallacy)

Correlation implies causation, also known as cum hoc ergo propter hoc (Latin for "with this, therefore because of this") and false cause, is a logical fallacy by which two events that occur together are claimed to be cause and effect.

For example:

Teenage girls eat lots of chocolate.

Teenage girls have acne.

Therefore, chocolate causes acne.

This argument, and any of this pattern, is an example of a false categorical syllogism. One observation about it is that the fallacy ignores the possibility that the correlation is coincidence. But we can always pick an example where the correlation is as robust as we please. If chocolate-eating and acne were strongly correlated across cultures, and remained strongly correlated for decades or centuries, it probably is not a coincidence. In that case, the fallacy ignores the possibility that there is a common cause of eating chocolate and having acne.

[tenn2005]

You go girl. Hang in there and don't let the doubters shove you to one side.

Best regards,

[curiosity]

Sorry I didn't ping you ladies on it, but see post #251. My friend's paper on soccer and stock returns, IMHO, is a good practical exmaple of a researcher can determine whether an observed correlation is causal.