Agreed. It’s just a pet peeve because the concept of “correlation” does not cut at the seams here. I was certainly not faulting you (as your post was likely a response to the slate article, which used the term “correlation” as well).
I was going to mention that “correlation does not imply causation” sounds snappier, but the more I play around with it, “association does not imply causation” seems somewhat more aesthetically appealing.
doesnotimply.com is also free, shorter, less loaded (in the way you describe above), and has an obvious logo to go with it (=/=>). If I go ahead with it, I might use that instead.
Somehow, the “correlation does not imply causation (but it furtively suggests it, etc)” idea is linked in my brain with the “absence of evidence is not evidence of absence (but it is if you’re a Bayesian)” idea.
At the risk of diluting the original good idea, maybe doesnotimply.com could incorporate the latter also.
I had intended on tackling this, but the original still works as a Steel Man of the general case.
Agreed. It’s just a pet peeve because the concept of “correlation” does not cut at the seams here. I was certainly not faulting you (as your post was likely a response to the slate article, which used the term “correlation” as well).
I was going to mention that “correlation does not imply causation” sounds snappier, but the more I play around with it, “association does not imply causation” seems somewhat more aesthetically appealing.
doesnotimply.com is also free, shorter, less loaded (in the way you describe above), and has an obvious logo to go with it (=/=>). If I go ahead with it, I might use that instead.
My vote goes to doesnotimp.ly
Somehow, the “correlation does not imply causation (but it furtively suggests it, etc)” idea is linked in my brain with the “absence of evidence is not evidence of absence (but it is if you’re a Bayesian)” idea.
At the risk of diluting the original good idea, maybe doesnotimply.com could incorporate the latter also.