Comments on: Can you have causation without correlation? (Surprisingly, yes)

By: Spencer

Spencer — Fri, 25 Oct 2024 17:44:32 +0000

In reply to Iain. Thank you, good catch! It’s now corrected

By: Iain

Iain — Fri, 25 Oct 2024 16:36:40 +0000

There is a straightforward error right at the start:
“Here are five ways you can have correlation without causation:”
Should be “causation without correlation”

By: Spencer

Spencer — Tue, 09 Apr 2024 04:12:35 +0000

In reply to Arthur. Good catch, thanks!

By: Arthur

Arthur — Tue, 19 Mar 2024 21:39:02 +0000

I ended up here after listening to the recent 80k podcast. Great short post!

I think there might be a small typo in number 4, however. As currently written, the second sentence doesn’t make sense: “Since A and C are both active, deactivating one has no effect on C.”

I’m pretty sure this should read, “Since A and *B* are both active, deactivating one has no effect on C.”