No, it’s not. The joke is that there is a correlation, but that actually correlation doesn’t mean causation. But here we have a situation where there is neither correlation nor causation.
The problem is that the joke suggests that correlation is when A -> B (or at least it appears as such). Implication (in formal logic) is not the same as correlation.
Then the rate of dying for both humans who confuse correlation and causation and those who don’t is 100%. Hence there is no correlation between the confusion and dying. So no one is confusing correlation or causation, because neither are present.
Zagorath@aussie.zone 1 month ago
No, it’s not. The joke is that there is a correlation, but that actually correlation doesn’t mean causation. But here we have a situation where there is neither correlation nor causation.
The problem is that the joke suggests that correlation is when A -> B (or at least it appears as such). Implication (in formal logic) is not the same as correlation.
credo@lemmy.world 1 month ago
Sorry to get mathematical…
P(A∣B)=P(A) iff P(B∣A)=P(B) iff P(A∩B)=P(A)P(B)
->𝐴 and 𝐵 are uncorrelated or independent.
tetris11@lemmy.ml 1 month ago
isn’t that just Bayesian apologist propaganda?
*jumps in an unlabelled Frequentist van* “Floor it!”
rustydrd@sh.itjust.works 1 month ago
Don’t even need to bring probability into this. Death is certain, and correlation requires variance.
FundMECFSResearch@lemmy.blahaj.zone 1 month ago
Yup.
If the rate of dying is 100% for all humans.
Then the rate of dying for both humans who confuse correlation and causation and those who don’t is 100%. Hence there is no correlation between the confusion and dying. So no one is confusing correlation or causation, because neither are present.