Correlation vs Causation

just so there is an objective report

 What is causation and correlation?
Let’s start off with the basics. What is the definition of causation vs correlation. 

Well, according to the Bureau of Statistics correlation is, “A statistical measure (expressed as a number) that describes the size and direction of a relationship between two or more variables.” 

While causation “Indicates that one event is the result of the occurrence of the other event; i.e. there is a causal relationship between the two events. This is also referred to as cause and effect.”

The classic causation vs correlation example that is frequently used is that smoking is correlated with alcoholism, but doesn’t cause alcoholism. While smoking causes an increase in the risk of developing lung cancer.
 

Perhaps "causation" should have been defined at the start of this.

Here's my contribution:

The connection of one process (cause) with another process or state (effect), where the first is at least partly responsible for the second, and the second is at least partly dependent on the first (paraphrased from Wikipedia). 

"Cause" reflects the strength of the evidence that the absence of a thing is different from the presence of the thing (paraphrased from Paul's sig) (all other things being equal).

Linda

Perhaps "causation" should have been defined at the start of this.

Here's my contribution:

The connection of one process (cause) with another process or state (effect), where the first is at least partly responsible for the second, and the second is at least partly dependent on the first (paraphrased from Wikipedia). 

"Cause" reflects the strength of the evidence that the absence of a thing is different from the presence of the thing (paraphrased from Paul's sig) (all other things being equal).

Hmm. If I go into London on the train, does the train cause me to go, or is it just the means of my going?

Perhaps "causation" should have been defined at the start of this.

Here's my contribution:

The connection of one process (cause) with another process or state (effect), where the first is at least partly responsible for the second, and the second is at least partly dependent on the first (paraphrased from Wikipedia). 

"Cause" reflects the strength of the evidence that the absence of a thing is different from the presence of the thing (paraphrased from Paul's sig) (all other things being equal).

Linda

I read a semantic statement about an abstract concept.  Where's the science "meat".  Partly responsible -- is hard to precipitate in a beaker.

On the other hand; well-formed data can show correlations across multiple process models in larger systems.  That's when your sigma value, earned from having a computational database of observations, gains accuracy and your causal premise gets juicy.

No offense - in today's world with bs science papers being blown-up on a regular basis; a solid data model and computationally backed findings and conclusions, are required for success.

I read a semantic statement about an abstract concept.  Where's the science "meat".  Partly responsible -- is hard to precipitate in a beaker.

On the other hand; well-formed data can show correlations across multiple process models in larger systems.  That's when your sigma value, earned from having a computational database of observations, gains accuracy and your causal premise gets juicy.

No offense - in today's world with bs science papers being blown-up on a regular basis; a solid data model and computationally backed findings and conclusions, are required for success.

I’m still not getting what you are talking about. Help me out by taking one of my examples and explaining where the “solid data model and computationally backed findings and conclusions” comes in to it, like my H. pylori example.

The science “meat” is that I don’t have a stomach ulcer, nor can H. pylori be demonstrated in my stomach. I am given H. pylori, I get a stomach ulcer, H. pylori is demonstrated in my ulcer, I am treated for H. pylori, the H. pylori is no longer present and the gastric ulcer is gone. All of the above except that the H. pylori is still present after treatment and the ulcer is still there. All of the above except that I am not treated for H. pylori (I got the placebo) and both (ulcer and microorganism) are still there. All of the above except that I never got the H. pylori (I got the placebo) and both (ulcer and microorganism) are not there.

“Partly responsible” can be precipitated in a beaker, when you add the crystal seed to the supersaturated solution. Sigma values are meaningless when collected in low validity environments. Science papers are blown up because they are performed under low-validity/high-risk-of-bias conditions, not because they aren’t backed by data-dredging endeavours. It’s data dredging which is meaningless unless you go on to back it up with good-quality experimental research, not the other way around.

Linda

Postulated, rather than discovered, I would say in these examples. But I get your drift.

Higgs boson was discovered because someone plugged numbers into a model and realized it had to exist. Same thing with dark matter / energy.

Iyace's statement is accurate if he is implicating the empirical evidence of circa  2012.  Not so if he's implicating the predictions inherent in the "Strandard Model" theory in 1964. 40 years passed between prediction and its discovery.

This discussion leaves me at a bit of a loss. I'm not really a fan of this kind of metaphysical discussion, but I don't think it's difficult to grasp the concepts that are at issue, as far as concerns the relationship between the brain and consciousness.

Essentially the two most extreme positions are: 
(1) consciousness is entirely a product of the brain, and if the brain is destroyed, consciousness permanently ceases, and 
(2) consciousness is entirely independent of the brain, and all that the brain does is to mediate the interaction between consciousness and the material world.

In between those extremes are any number of intermediate opinions.

It might be useful to devise experimental tests which could distinguish between these opinions. But that is not easy.

Even those ideas concede that the appearance that the brain causes mind needs some sort of explanation, though (never mind the trees in Paul's yard). Which still brings us back to the point brought up in the OP. The kidney's role in filtering toxins is not "correlation" pending proof that the kidney is not merely a conduit of the cosmic toxin filtering entity. Why are we treating the brain differently?

Linda

I think it's because, unlike filtering toxins, it's not understood how physical processes in the brain produce consciousness, and some people find it unbelievable that they can.

Kidneys aren't existential things. No member would argue otherwise, for some reason though the human brain is. Why is that distinction made?

Kidneys aren't existential things. No member would argue otherwise, for some reason though the human brain is. Why is that distinction made?

I think it's based on a difference in function. Kidneys produce one thing. Brains something different. If you're lucky.  

Kidneys aren't existential things. No member would argue otherwise, for some reason though the human brain is. Why is that distinction made?

Wait.  Do Kidney's know what it is to feel the color red?