Does correlation imply causation?
>>1215472
Define "imply"
Define "Does", "correlation", "imply", "causation" and "?"
>>1215481
imply
[im-plahy]
verb (used with object), implied, implying.
1. To indicate or suggest without being explicitly stated.
?
Considering that image shows European countries have the highest life expectancy, i'd say so.
>>1215472
Dat bait
>>1215500
I'm asking out of sincerity.
Is socialism just incredibly shit or what?
>>1215472
1) In the natural language sense of "imply" as: suggesting, being indicative of, hm isn't that interesting maybe they're related somehow, yes, correlation does imply causation. Note that this is squishy natural language which does not /prove/ causation, and requires a more detailed inquiry where-ever a correlation may be found. Perhaps, for example, there is some third independent factor that we haven't accounted for which causes ice cream sales and shark attacks to rise and fall together on an annual basis. After all, ice cream sales and shark attacks don't seem at first blush to be related, but our data show a very tight correlation, explained if not in terms of the one causing the other, then by some other means. In this sense of "suggesting" correlation does imply causation, but further analysis (why would we be doing the analysis in the first place if we did not at least suspect a relationship?) may yet reveal that the one does not cause the other, in which case the suggestion turns out to be false. A good data fit always initially suggests a pattern or relationship however, in the natural language sense.
2) In the logical sense of "imply" as: P -> Q, then no, correlation does not imply causation, where P and Q stand for the respective terms. All that we require for the expression P -> Q to be true in every case (I stop short of saying tautology as it would be a slight abuse of language), is that it never happens that P is true while Q is false. But as has been suggested above, we easily find correlations of two sets of data, and yet the one does not cause the other. A single counter-example is enough to conclude that "It is not true, in every single case, that correllation implies causation." This is what is really meant when people say "correlation does not imply causation."
This is what is wrong with the statistician's mantra for freshmen. He should instead say to his students: "correlation does not necessitate causation", or a similar phrase.
>>1215504
With a decent training in statistics, you would know that correlation doesn't imply causation. This is one of the first debunked myth in those kind of classes.
>>1215504
No, compare Cuba to the rest of Latin America.
>>1215472
Being anti-American = getting fucked over
>>1215591
And don't you forget it.
>>1215472
Let's try an experiment.
>correlation
>>1216751
>implying
>>1215472
How much worse would the HDI of those countries be without socialism?
>>1215472
Doesn't even seem like a good correlation, most of the socialist places are a mediocre yellowish, while there's lots of greener places and lots of redder ones.
>>1215472
stupid map, and a stupid american's classic misunderstanding of what socialism is.
Germany, Sweden, Norway, Finland, Canada, and Australia, for example, are far more socialist than Iraq, Syria or Mongolia ever were.
>b-b-but they had Socialist in their official name!
>>1216765
>causation
>>1215472
I don't see much of a correlation.
>>1215472
>that map
Socialism never really improves the lives of the subjects very much, but it's only ever applied in countries that are already shit
>>1218012
I mean, if Russia was capitalist it could have had great potential, Soviet Union was already an industrial powerhouse.
>>1215472
No one here seems to be scientifically literate. Correlation does imply causation. Key word being imply.
>>1218177
Assuming this isn't bait:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logical_implication
This is the type of "implies" that is meant, as anyone scientifically literate would know.
>>1215472
Socialism makes people poor.
Socialism is adopted by poor nations.
It goes both ways.
>>1218012
Citation needed there, Bubba.
Sweden is probably textbook example. It is quite a rich and stable democracy, makes active efforts at universal rights, etc (even if some of policy is misguided or fails). But it wasn't always so, and in fact used to be quite poor.
It's having problems today, but since the end of the Cold War, neo-liberal policies as championed by Anglo-American power (through various supranational bodies) have changed the playing field so that more socialist (social democratic, really) systems are prone to struggle.
>inb4 hurr durr Somalians or Captain Sweden memes
Why do you think they're attracted to Sweden, a frozen forest, in the first place?
