LISTSERV mailing list manager LISTSERV 15.5

Help for FISH-SCI Archives

FISH-SCI Archives

FISH-SCI Archives


Next Message | Previous Message
Next in Topic | Previous in Topic
Next by Same Author | Previous by Same Author
Chronologically | Most Recent First
Proportional Font | Monospaced Font


Join or Leave FISH-SCI
Reply | Post New Message
Search Archives


Re: Stock Assessment models


Steve Gutreuter <[log in to unmask]>


Scientific forum on fish and fisheries <[log in to unmask]>


Tue, 18 Apr 2000 16:38:42 +0200





text/plain (1 lines)

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]
><> ><> ><> ><> ><> ><> ><> ><> ><> ><> ><> ><> ><> ><> ><> ><>

Back to: Top of Message | Previous Page | Main FISH-SCI Page



CataList Email List Search Powered by the LISTSERV Email List Manager