Correlation and Causation
Two things moving together is evidence for a causal link but never proof of one, or of its direction.
Correlation and Causation names the gap between observing that two variables move together and establishing that one produces the other. Correlation is symmetric and cheap to measure; causation is directional and expensive to establish, and the entire discipline of experimental design exists to close that gap when it can't be closed by staring at the data harder.
There are three standard ways correlation shows up without causation, and it's worth naming all three because "correlation isn't causation" alone doesn't tell you what to check instead. First, reverse causation: ice cream sales correlate with drowning deaths, and it's tempting to blame the ice cream, when both are driven by summer weather — a confound, the third thing causing both. Second, the arrow can run backward from the one assumed: a company's best engineers might get assigned the most interesting projects, making "interesting projects → great engineers" and "great engineers → interesting projects" both consistent with the same correlation. Third, plain coincidence — with enough variables in a dataset, some will correlate by chance alone (falling asleep with shoes on correlates with waking up with a headache; both are caused by drinking).
The gold-standard fix is a randomized controlled experiment, because randomization breaks any link between the treatment and whatever confound might otherwise explain the outcome — it's the only tool that can turn a correlation into a causal claim without a fully specified causal model of everything else going on. Short of that, the honest move is naming the confounds you can think of and checking whether the correlation survives controlling for them, rather than asserting causation because the story is intuitive.
Engineers hit this constantly in incident analysis: a deploy correlates with a spike in errors, and it's usually the deploy — but "usually" is doing real work in that sentence, and a Root Cause Analysis that stops at correlation is one confound away from blaming the wrong commit.
See also6
Root Cause Analysis
Escalating past the visible symptom until you find the layer that actually produced it.
Method49 connections
Simpson's Paradox
A trend appears in several groups of data but reverses or disappears when the groups are combined.
Method5 connections
Base Rate Fallacy
judging a specific case from vivid evidence while discounting how common the categories actually are.
Method18 connections
Plausible Mechanism
A causal explanation that was inferred rather than tested, and reads as more rigorous for being specific.
Method63 connections
Falsifiability
A claim is only worth something if you know what observation would refute it.
Method46 connections
P-Hacking
Trying enough analyses on the same data until one crosses the significance threshold, then reporting only that one.
Meaning & Society5 connections
Related1
Nearby in the graph rather than deliberately chosen. Looser, sometimes surprising.
Linked from3
- Five WhysMethod
Repeatedly asking why a symptom occurred, chaining each answer into the next question until the causal chain runs out.
- Regression to the MeanMethod
An extreme measurement tends to be followed by a more average one, with no cause required beyond noise.
- Simpson's ParadoxMethod
A trend appears in several groups of data but reverses or disappears when the groups are combined.