4,781
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 6:
Line 6: − A [[correlation]] between two variables does not always mean that one variable has caused a change in the other. Often a third variable is causing both, such as shark attacks and ice cream sales. These two factors may correlate, but they are not directly related. Rather, both go up each summer as people go swimming at ocean beaches. − + − − It is a [[logical fallacy]] to assume that correlation implies causation. − − The following is a flawed argument: − − #Event A occurs in concurrence with Event B − #Therefore, Event A causes Event B − − This is flawed because: − − #There may be a confounding factor causing A ''and'' B − #B may cause A − #The relationship may be a complete coincidence − − ==Examples== − − #As sales of ice cream rise, so do reports of shark attacks − #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. − − #Since the construction of a stadium began in Alaska, the value of your home in Texas has risen − #Stadium construction in Alaska causes higher home values in Texas − − '''Flaw:''' This is a coincidence between unrelated variables. Line 39:
Line 13: − +
removed section on correlation vs. causation, added link to separate page. Changed cat to reflect what correlation is.
==Correlation and causation==
==Correlation and causation==
Correlation is often confused with [[causation]]; see an [[correlation is not causation|explanation]].
==References==
==References==
*[http://www.stat.tamu.edu/stat30x/notes/node42.html Texas A&M University]
*[http://www.stat.tamu.edu/stat30x/notes/node42.html Texas A&M University]
[[Category:logical fallacy]]
[[Category:statistics]]