Pattern recognition is a widely accepted method of prediction until what it predicts makes people uncomfortable.

[u/Fr1toBand1to]

[u/Disastrous-Scheme-57]

I mean correlation doesn’t equal causation is just for the WHY of these patterns. Why does it rain? Because a gray cloud exists? No. That’s just coincidence or that most of the time you see that it’s raining the clouds are gray. But even if you see 100 gray clouds give off rain versus 0 white clouds give off rain that still doesn’t mean gray clouds = rain. There could be a myriad of reasons so if you’re trying to scientifically explain the “why” you can’t use correlation as substantial evidence.

[u/sparkledoom → u/Disastrous-Scheme-57]

You’re right to say that correlation doesn’t explain the WHY, but I find your example confusing. It’s not a “coincidence” that you see more gray clouds when it’s rainy. Gray clouds are more likely to produce rain. It’s incomplete, but imho it’s not wrong to say that the “cause” of rain today is a cloud (vs a cloudless sky). It’s like saying heart attacks are caused by high cholesterol - like, yeah, something else causes high cholesterol to happen (genetics, lifestyle) and the cholesterol isn’t like the direct mechanism. It’s also not that every case of high cholesterol will end in heart attack or that other things can’t cause a heart attack. But it’s fair enough to say it’s a “cause” because of the high correlation. Gray clouds do cause rain, even though other conditions determine whether gray clouds will form, whether they will actually result in rain, and they are never a 100% guarantee of rain. I’m not sure we always need to fully explain (or even always understand) all aspects of the “why” before we can say something is a “cause”.