1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.
  2. Hi Guest, welcome to the TES Community!

    Connect with like-minded professionals and have your say on the issues that matter to you.

    Don't forget to look at the how to guide.

    Dismiss Notice

Correlation and Causation

Discussion in 'Mathematics' started by stevencarrwork, Jan 24, 2011.

  1. Knowing that correlation is not the same as causation correlates very highly with taking a course in statistics.

    What does that prove exactly?
     
  2. Knowing that correlation is not the same as causation correlates very highly with taking a course in statistics.

    What does that prove exactly?
     
  3. True [​IMG]
    How come? [​IMG]
    Dunno [​IMG]
     
  4. Prove? Nothing at all (given that this is stats and I don't think proof comes into stats).
    If there is correlation between the two parts of the first sentence then this doesn't necessarily mean that taking a course in stats give one the requisite knowledge (because this would be assuming causality).
    So: I am going to suggest that "Knowing that correlation is not the same as causation correlates very highly with taking a course in statistics" doesn't disprove the suggestion that learning a course has no bearing on how well you understand the material in that course.
    I think.
    How did I do?
    [I thought this was obvious when I read it first - now I'm not at all sure!]
     
  5. GoldMaths

    GoldMaths New commenter

    What came first the chicken or the egg?
     
  6. googolplex

    googolplex Occasional commenter

    According to QI, it was the egg, cos chickens would have evolved from reptiles which also came from eggs; so eggs came before chickens. The explanation left me thinking "what came first, the reptile or the egg...?"
     
  7. It is always the egg

    Since something that is not a "blah" lays the egg that hatches the "blah"

    That's evolution
     
  8. DM

    DM New commenter

    Where's our resident evolutionary bioinformatician when you need him?
    bgy1???
     
  9. Here.
    We can easily posit a causal mechanism - which is that statistics courses teach students that correlation doesn't necessarily imply causation.
    However there are possible alternate hypotheses. One is that intelligent students, who know that correlation doesn't imply causation, gravitate towards statistics courses. Whilst we could test this - by taking a sample of students before they take their course - we'd need rather a large cohort because we can't predict in advance who will take the course and who won't. You can't necessarily research everything.
    There are other things we can do, such as test that correlation doesn't equal causation is actually taught, and test that other subjects that are taught - eg how to calculate a chi-square, are actually learnt.This tells us whether teaching as a whole is effective.
    Ultimately you can only reject hypotheses in statistics, you can't prove them.

     

Share This Page