We are, in general, having the same opinion about correlation. Agreed. Best
regards.

Shareef Siddeek
Alaska Department of Fish and Game
Juneau

Steve Gutreuter wrote:

> On Mon, 17 Apr 2000 10:52:46 -0800, Shareef Siddeek
> <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> > I do not agree with your statement that correlation can never be evidence
> > of causality. It is a sign  for the scientist to investigate further to
> > find the causality.
>
> It is reasonable to conclude that, given a mechanistically plausible
> model, high correlation is _preliminary_ evidence of causality, and
> it is a sign for the scientist to investigate further whether
> causality really does exist.  That investigation generally requires
> perturbing the system and then (1) determining whether the changes
> predicted by the model really do occur, and (2) tracing those changes
> through any intermediate causal pathways that are thought to exist.
>
> > My understanding is that
> > with high causality you will get high correlation.
>
> However, the far more useful reverse inference is _not_ necessarily true.
> That is, high correlation does not 'prove' causation.
>
> ><> ><> ><> ><> ><> ><> ><> ><> ><> ><> ><> ><> ><> ><> ><> ><>
>        To leave the Fish-Sci list, Send blank message to:
>         mailto:[log in to unmask]
>  For information send INFO FISH-SCI to [log in to unmask]
> ><> ><> ><> ><> ><> ><> ><> ><> ><> ><> ><> ><> ><> ><> ><> ><>

><> ><> ><> ><> ><> ><> ><> ><> ><> ><> ><> ><> ><> ><> ><> ><>
       To leave the Fish-Sci list, Send blank message to:
        mailto:[log in to unmask]
 For information send INFO FISH-SCI to [log in to unmask]
><> ><> ><> ><> ><> ><> ><> ><> ><> ><> ><> ><> ><> ><> ><> ><>