The Bradford Hill criteria, otherwise known as Hill's criteria for causation, are a group of minimal conditions necessary to provide adequate evidence of a causal relationship between an incidence and a possible consequence, established by the English epidemiologist Sir Austin Bradford Hill (1897–1991) in 1965.

The list of the criteria is as follows:

Strength (effect size): A small association does not mean that there is not a causal effect, though the larger the association, the more likely that it is causal.[1]
Consistency (reproducibility): Consistent findings observed by different persons in different places with different samples strengthens the likelihood of an effect.[1]
Specificity: Causation is likely if there is a very specific population at a specific site and disease with no other likely explanation. The more specific an association between a factor and an effect is, the bigger the probability of a causal relationship.[1]
Temporality: The effect has to occur after the cause (and if there is an expected delay between the cause and expected effect, then the effect must occur after that delay).[1]
Biological gradient: Greater exposure should generally lead to greater incidence of the effect. However, in some cases, the mere presence of the factor can trigger the effect. In other cases, an inverse proportion is observed: greater exposure leads to lower incidence.[1]
Plausibility: A plausible mechanism between cause and effect is helpful (but Hill noted that knowledge of the mechanism is limited by current knowledge).[1]
Coherence: Coherence between epidemiological and laboratory findings increases the likelihood of an effect. However, Hill noted that "... lack of such [laboratory] evidence cannot nullify the epidemiological effect on associations".[1]
Experiment: "Occasionally it is possible to appeal to experimental evidence".[1]
Analogy: The effect of similar factors may be considered.[1]

>>8191690
Has this all been verified for "man made" climate change? Not trying to be /pol/ here, just a curious layman question.

>>8191690
>Temporality: The effect has to occur after the cause
But doesn't special relativity posit that there is no absolute time? So you cannot impose a temporal order on events.

>>8193187
would that not only be a problem for observers near black holes or traveling at great speed

>>8193253
Near black holes you even have general relativity making things much more complicated. It would also be a problem for observers separated by huge distances.

>>8191688
None and infinitely much. You can't ever use correlation to imply causation. If you want to imply causation then you always have to describe the mechanism that allows that causation and there is no way around that.

And if you want to really be believed then your mechanism proposal better be more of a mathematical model than a worded explanation.

>>8191688
Enough correlation.

>>8191787
▶ man made
No manual entry for made

>>8196149
Because "made" is past tense. The compiler tool is "make".

>>8196172
▶ made
zsh: command not found: made

▶ make
make: *** No targets specified and no makefile found. Stop.