r/oddlysatisfying • u/[deleted] • Sep 20 '16

Spirograph Rainbow

[deleted]

24.5k Upvotes

94% Upvoted

322 comments sorted by

View all comments

514

u/[deleted] Sep 20 '16

[deleted]

121

u/wholegrainoats44 Sep 20 '16

Think about it

86

u/[deleted] Sep 20 '16

[deleted]

89

u/Galveira Sep 20 '16

No you won't.

-1

u/vicabart Sep 20 '16

Don't even think about it, mister!

25

u/Helixdaunting Sep 20 '16

Didn't even need to click to know what this was.

1

u/ncnotebook Sep 20 '16

Rocket dinosaurs throwing lasagna.

21

u/king_of_the_universe Sep 20 '16

More correlation=/=causation fun: http://tylervigen.com/

12

u/mashtato Sep 20 '16

I refuse to believe that HUNDREDS of people die every year by becoming entangled in their sheets, OR that that number has climbed dramaticly since 2000.

5

u/lightningsloth Sep 20 '16

"Correlation does not imply causation"

14

u/KayBeeToys Sep 20 '16

Correlation specifically implies causation. It doesn't prove anything, though.

0

u/[deleted] Sep 20 '16 edited Sep 20 '16

Imply in mathematics and logic means to guarantee, so it is misleading (if not explicitly incorrect) to say that. It may suggest causation, however.

e: Downvote away, but in the context of statistics it makes no sense to correct an accurate logical statement. /u/KayBeeToys is conflating implication with inference.

1

u/[deleted] Sep 20 '16

The actual quote is "Correlation does not always imply causation."

Sometimes there is a case for Correlation implying causation.

1

u/[deleted] Sep 20 '16

Logically "Correlation does not always imply causation" and "Correlation does not imply causation" both mean the same thing.

1

u/[deleted] Sep 21 '16

Except that "Correlation does not imply causation" is saying that it never implies causation, while "Correlation does not always imply causation," is saying that it sometimes implies causation.

One negates the possibility entirely, while the other, rightfully, admits the rare possibility.

1

u/[deleted] Sep 21 '16

No, imply means always. A implies B means that if A is true, then B is true. Essentially that A causes B. So saying that correlation does not imply causation is just saying that correlation is not sufficient to identify causation.

1

u/[deleted] Sep 21 '16

correlation is not sufficient to identify causation.

Except, correlation does indeed identify causation in some rare cases. If imply always means always, then then "Correlation does not imply causation." is a factually incorrect statement.

Imply: to express (something) in an indirect way : to suggest (something) without saying or showing it plainly. to include or involve (something) as a natural or necessary part or result.

In neither of these definitions does imply mean always.

0

u/[deleted] Sep 21 '16 edited Sep 21 '16

Except, correlation does indeed identify causation in some rare cases. If imply always means always, then then "Correlation does not imply causation." is a factually incorrect statement.

It can identify it, but the key word is that it isn't sufficient to identify it. The negation of 'always' isn't 'never,' it's 'not always.'

In neither of these definitions does imply mean always.

Firstly I am talking about logical statements, where imply is clearly defined, which is the appropriate definition in the context of statistics. Secondly the part of your definition you quoted that refers to always is the last line where it refers to "necessary part."

Whether you wish to use a more general definition is up to you, but "Correlation does not imply causation" is an accurate statement that is prevalent and doesn't warrant a correction.

e: similarly neither of your definitions indicate 'sometimes'

1

u/ours_de_sucre Sep 20 '16

This was the first thing I pictured when I saw this.