Journal Chacham's Journal: Verbiage: Correlation does not connote causation 5
I just read a comment: "Correlation does not connote causation." A search found the more common adage uses "imply" instead of "connote". Though, they are somewhat synonymous.
Anyway, that seems wrong. I mean, the whole point is that it does indeed imply causation. That's why we need to remind people that it does not equal causation.
Correct quote (Score:2)
The correct quote is, "Correlation is not causation." Absent further evidence any implication is unfounded.
Re: (Score:1)
What makes that the "correct" version? It seems the line has quite the history and has taken on many forms. Fwiw, Wikipedia justifies "implies" [wikipedia.org].
Re: (Score:2)
What makes that the "correct" version?
Well, for one thing it leaves out words that warp the meaning. As you point out, correlation means causation is -plausible- while a lack of correlation makes causation unlikely. If you pinch "imply" hard enough you can make it mean "infer" or "deduce," but it actually means, "strongly suggest." Correlation doesn't suggest any particular causal relationship but it does suggest that one exists.
Re: (Score:1)
If you pinch "imply" hard enough you can make it mean "infer"
That statement itself is enough to pinch all the linguists out there. :P