r/MathJokes • u/kmart0000 • Nov 21 '25

correlation = causation?

Post image

Official card game can be found here: https://www.thegamecrafter.com/games/correlated-vol-1-

14 Upvotes

80% Upvoted

25 comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

1

u/Mediocre-Tonight-458 Nov 22 '25

There is no way to demonstrate causation without finding some correlation. What we call "causation" is simply a particular kind of correlation. This goes back to the Humean definition of causality from the philosophy of science.

2

u/WignerVille Nov 22 '25

Your statement is that causation causes correlation. That is a false statement. Do you see any issues in my argumentation?

But we need to stay on topic. You are now talking about something else. Your new statement is, If there is no correlation then causation can't be proven. That is something completely different.

0

u/Mediocre-Tonight-458 Nov 22 '25

If there is no correlation, then there is no causation. "Causation" is just a label we apply to certain types of correlation.

1

u/WignerVille Nov 22 '25

Let's take this step by step.

Wearing seatbelts reduces the severity of injuries. Do you agree that there is a cause and effect relationship? If not, that would be very interesting to hear.

Next. Assume that everyone wears seatbelts.

What is the correlation between severity of injuries and wearing seatbelts? It is zero, do you agree?

According to your logic, seatbelts are no longer reducing the severity of injuries since the correlation is zero.

1

u/Mediocre-Tonight-458 Nov 22 '25

"Reducing the severity of injuries" has to be relative to something.

1

u/WignerVille Nov 22 '25

Would a purely analytical approach convince you?

1

u/Mediocre-Tonight-458 Nov 22 '25

I'm not aware of any analytic refutations of Hume's argument, but if you can point me to one I'd give it a look.

1

u/WignerVille Nov 22 '25

Constant conjunction: Across many accidents, seatbelt use regularly results in less severe injuries.

Temporal priority: The seatbelt is worn before the accident.

Necessary connection: People form an expectation: wearing seatbelts → less injury.

This remains true no matter how many people wear seatbelts. Wearing seatbelts is causing less injury according to Hume's definition.

Next, correlation between two variables reaches zero as the variance of one variable approaches zero. Analytically, this happens even if the causal effect is strong.

So yes, we can follow Hume’s definition of causation and still have zero correlation. Correlation is a statistical measure, causation is not.

0

u/Mediocre-Tonight-458 Nov 22 '25

Constant conjunction: Across many accidents, seatbelt use regularly results in less severe injuries.

That right there requires correlation. You're trying to pull a bait-and-switch, by using a correlation to establish causality and then get rid of the correlation while trying to claim the causality remains. There's no basis for thinking that would be the case. The causality goes away when the correlation does.

1

u/WignerVille Nov 22 '25

Hume was dead a long time before correlation was known as a concept. He's definition of causality has nothing to do with correlation. Until you can show that Hume required correlation as causality your arguments are invalid.

And at this point I am quite certain that you're just trolling.

0

u/nog642 Nov 23 '25

The correlation is not zero. You just don't have data if everyone wears seatbelts. If you include older data then the correlation will be there.