This Article From Issue
March-April 2015
Volume 103, Number 2
Page 83
DOI: 10.1511/2015.113.83
To the Editors:
In "What Everyone Should Know About Statistical Correlation" (January–February, Ethics), Vladica Velickovic correctly mentions the error of assuming that correlation implies causality. Unfortunately, there are additional common errors in the scientific literature. If two variables are related causally, people often assume the direction of causality. To use the erroneous correlation example from the column, if Nobel Prizes and eating chocolate are causally related, people will assume that the correlation between the two means eating chocolate increases cognitive ability and hence the awarding of Nobel Prizes. But, it could be that winning a Nobel Prize causes a person to eat more chocolate. Of course, as Velickovic also points out, the correlation could mean that the relationship between the two is caused by something else. We need better education concerning correlation and causality.
Ted Grinthal
Berkeley Heights, NJ
American Scientist Comments and Discussion
To discuss our articles or comment on them, please share them and tag American Scientist on social media platforms. Here are links to our profiles on Twitter, Facebook, and LinkedIn.
If we re-share your post, we will moderate comments/discussion following our comments policy.