Difference between revisions of "Correlation"

From Conservapedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
(Correlation and causation)
Line 1: Line 1:
'''Correlation does not imply causation''' is a phrase used in [[statistics]] to point out that a [[correlation]] between two variables should not imply that one variable has not caused a change in the other. It is a [[logical fallacy]] to assume that correlation implies causation.
+
==Correlation and causation==
 +
"Correlation does not imply causation" is a phrase used in [[statistics]] to point out that a [[correlation]] between two variables should not imply that one variable has not caused a change in the other. It is a [[logical fallacy]] to assume that correlation implies causation.
  
 
The following is a flawed argument:
 
The following is a flawed argument:

Revision as of 20:16, October 13, 2007

Correlation and causation

"Correlation does not imply causation" is a phrase used in statistics to point out that a correlation between two variables should not imply that one variable has not caused a change in the other. It is a logical fallacy to assume that correlation implies causation.

The following is a flawed argument:

  1. Event A occurs in concurrence with Event B
  2. Therefore, Event A causes Event B

This is flawed because:

  1. There may be a confounding factor causing A and B
  2. B may cause A
  3. The relationship may be a complete coincidence

Examples

  1. As sales of ice cream rise, so do reports of shark attacks
  2. High sales of ice cream cause shark attacks

Flaw: Shark attacks and ice cream sales follow a seasonal pattern. Both rise in the summer months. The seasons are a confounding variable.

  1. Since the construction of a stadium began in Alaska, the value of your home in Texas has risen
  2. Stadium construction in Alaska causes higher home values in Texas

Flaw: This is a coincidence between unrelated variables.

References