You say this implies causation... I have my doubts in any sense of the word implies.
For sure, a correlation could lead to something to investigate, but look at enough data and you will find plenty of correlations that mean nothing. A lot depends on how the correlation is discovered (number of variables involved etc.).
>You say this implies causation... I have my doubts in any sense of the word implies.
Couples divorcing people their partner got fat on margarine?
Besides that's not the best way to check correlation charts. You first have to remove bias components influencing both curves, e.g. the mere act that both are rising over time.
When you do that, do they still match each other, e.g. following increases and decreases? I very much doubt so. So this plot doesn't actually show correlation -- just that both "increase" over time in a similar way.
The same kind of "same plot trends" happens or every set of things that e.g. both have an exponential growth curve -- but it's not correlation unless both change consistently as the other changes.
That can't be right. There are so many spurious correlations that obviously imply nothing.
There's got to be some other required factor before correlation can imply causation. Like "if there's reason to believe something is relevant, and there is correlation, then that implies causation. "
It sure does. It might not prove causation, or it might not necessitate causation, but it very much implies it.
Somehow people forget that "imply" means: "indicate the truth or existence of (something) by suggestion rather than explicit reference".
In this -- the dictionary and everyday sense -- correlation DOES imply (suggest) causation. It just doesn't secure it.