Shopping Cart -

Your cart is currently empty.
Upgrade to today
for only an extra Cxx.xx

You get:

plus This issue of xxxxxxxxxxx.
plus Instant access to the latest issue of 340+ of our top selling titles.
plus Unlimited access to 30000+ back issues
plus No contract or commitment. If you decide that PocketmagsPlus is not for you, you can cancel your monthly subscription online at any time. Auto-renews at €10,99 per month, unless cancelled.
Upgrade for €1.09
Then just €10,99 / month. Cancel anytime.
Learn more
Pocketmags Digital Magazines
Pocketmags Digital Magazines
   You are currently viewing the Italy version of the site.
Would you like to switch to your local site?
Leggi ovunque Read anywhere
Modalità di pagamento Pocketmags Payment Types
Trusted site
A Pocketmags si ottiene
Fatturazione sicura
Ultime offerte
Web & App Reader
Loyalty Points


Correlations and Causation

Kudos to Dr. Morton E. Tavel for his article “Correlations: How Do We Ever Establish Definite Causation?” in SI (September/ October 2015, pp. 54–55). His reference to Hill’s 1965 report by example reinforced grounds for crucial conditions in cause-effect assumptions regarding the linkage between cigarette smoking and cancer. The query from Jim Jackson regarding “correlation is not causation” is raised often in classrooms and scientific critiques. Yet the quotation minimizes the probability that under bounded conditions, as explained in Tavel’s article (e.g., see Hill’s seven guidelines, point 2 “Consistency of association,” p. 55), correlation may be one indicator of “causation.” That is, if all known controls are implemented and if a statistical level of significance (p < .001) is agreed upon, then independent and dependent variables would be both correlated and assumed causally related.

In effect, then, the phrase, namely, “correlation is not causation” should be modified. A qualified expression is as follows: correlation does not guarantee causation. At issue are necessary (correlated) and sufficient (controlled) conditions. Essentially, “causation,” even with appropriate controls, is a tentative, statistically probable conclusion. Yet future research may reveal unexpected, extraneous intervening variables that require additional controls and re-evaluation. As British-Empiricist philosopher David Hume asserted, causality is couched in the probabilities of events, not in certainty (paraphrased).

William F. Vitulli, PhD Professor Emeritus of Psychology University of South Alabama Mobile, Alabama

Aristotle and Evidence

May I point out a minor error in Professor Hassani’s otherwise excellent article, “‘Post-Materialist’ Science? A Smokescreen for Woo” (Sep tember/October 2015). Pro fessor Hassani states: “Six teenth-century Europe saw the revival of science after a 1,800-year hiatus. There emerged two schools of thought. One school followed Plato and Aristotle and advocated primacy of the mind. The other emphasized the importance of observation . . . etc.”

Purchase options below
Find the complete article and many more in this issue of Skeptical Inquirer - Jan Feb 2016
If you own the issue, Login to read the full article now.
Single Digital Issue
Jan Feb 2016
This issue and other back issues are not included in a new Skeptical Inquirer subscription. Subscriptions include the latest regular issue and new issues released during your subscription.
Annual Digital Subscription
Only € 3,16 per issue

View Issues

About Skeptical Inquirer

The ‘Lie Detector’ Test Revisited: A Great Example of Junk Science Trends in Scientific Knowledge, Education, and Religion The Science of Meaning Mistaken Memories of Vampires: Pseudohistories and much more.