Tags
If there is one catch phrase I could just smite and forever remove from anyone’s lips it would be “causation is not correlation.” That one just forms this little twitch over my left eyebrow every time I see it. It’s become a pet peeve of mine.
I understand the attraction, it makes people sound really smart. It’s very sciency. It implies you might know something about statistics, reason, and logical fallacies. I don’t mean to sound unkind here, but those of us who are actually smart, are just not impressed by such posturing. Be yourself, speak honestly and simply from your own heart, that’s like chocolate for our souls.
So, so many people use “causation is not correlation” all wrong. It has come to mean, there is no cause and effect. Nothing is ever related to anything else. Everything is just random, coincidence, having sprung forth from a total vacuum, a void. There is no interconnectedness between things, no symbiosis, no relationship. 2 + 2 does not equal four, those twos just orbit their own little planet in an entire solar system of their very own. The universe of twos.
How did we ever get fours? Fours simply exist in an alternate universe, a place where random happenstance just kept playing out until it was statistically inevitable that “four” came into existence. Kind of like life on earth. Except random happenstance, probability, synchronicity, billions of events lining up perfectly, sure sounds like causation with some kind of correlation.
Declaring causation is not correlation as if that were the answer for everything is like extreme compartmentalization of your own brain. In biblical terms I would call this, “believing themselves wise, they became fools.”
Now, I don’t wish to be too judgmental here, I really do appreciate some diversity of thought, different ways of perceiving data. Not everyone must be always be looking at connection and relationship between things in the same extreme manner that I do, but to refuse to ever note any connection or relationship, to defiantly refuse to acknowledge that cause and effect actually exists, is an extreme too far.
The bible backs me up here. In the beginning…. There was a beginning. Science also backs me up. They call it the big bang. There is a causation that correlates with creation. All those begets in Genesis? Cause and effect in action. God’s old testament covenants? You do this, I’ll do that. Causation and correlation.
Edward Tufte once said, “Correlation is not causation but it sure is a hint.”
See, there's this thing called biology... 
IB, statistically speaking, 90.563% (with a + or – .2394 margin of error) are made up on the spot….great blog!
LikeLiked by 2 people
LOL! Well said and quite true.
LikeLike
That was completely over my head, but sounds sensible & fabulous at the same time.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Reblogged this on Let me give YOU the Moe-down and commented:
Correlation is not causation …
LikeLike
When I still practiced law, one of my specialties was medical malpractice. Try and defend a case in which the deviation from accepted medical practice and the injury are close in time.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Ahhh, yes. That does sound very complicated. I wrestle with some of those ethical issues myself, on a smaller scale. It’s tough because people today are more like consumers, so they shop for their healthcare and often demand their treatment. Conversely however, doctors are forced to respond to bureaucracy and insurance requirements. Somewhere in all that craziness, what is going to be best for the patient gets all lost.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Lol…I think I loved it, but you incorporated math. Anytime math is brought into subject, my brain runs for the hills. I do appreciate you telling me I can be my simple southern self.
LikeLiked by 1 person
LOL, your “simple southern self” is awesome. I kid you not, there is nothing more valuable then some plain speaking. I think that’s becoming an endangered species in our culture, right after common sense. 🙂
LikeLike
Okay, but how about the politicians who brag about some improvement in employment…while actively pursuing anti-employment policies. They ignore the other policies and conditions which were involved. A good example which might get me shouted at — the president brags about energy independence because of American oil drilling, while the oil companies mumble:”WE did that in spite of you…”
Make the same argument about crime, if the oil thing bothers you. Stop and frisk — and other policies — happened at a time when crime fell in NYC. Did stop and frisk “work?”
LikeLiked by 1 person
LOL, I doubt we’ll shout at you. There are a lot of variables, especially in politics. Unintended consequences are a huge problem, we often can’t see around the corner, so our cause and effect can deliver the precise opposite of what we wanted. To make matters more confusing, I sometimes say politicians make their living from trying to confuse issues, taking credit for the good things, deny ever having a hand in the bad.
LikeLiked by 2 people
It’s ironic, too, considering that quantum science is now saying that everything in the universe is connected.
I don’t mean to sound smart :), and I’m certainly not a Hebrew scholar, but I do have a friend who is, and he said that there is no Hebrew word for “coincidence.” That should tell us something.
LikeLiked by 1 person
“It’s ironic, too, considering that quantum science is now saying that everything in the universe is connected.”
Yes! Isn’t that cool? I love how science eventually catches up. The idea that “nothing is related” goes back some 50 years ago when science was still exploring the concept of “out of nothing, bang.” Today most of our scientists, molecular biologists, even philosophers, no longer hold those views because they are actually out dated. Unfortunately popular culture is usually far behind the times.
I used to say “coincidence” all the time because that’s what I was taught, too. God was not impressed with my always labeling His careful and meticulous work, “random happenstance” so I try not to do that anymore. 🙂
LikeLiked by 1 person
Which ’causes’ me to ‘correlate’ the tabs of my keyboard to an expression of good will towards you! Science has come far, just not far enough. Can science explain thought and emotions? Still i ‘think’ and ‘feel’ for them….
LikeLiked by 1 person
Do you have a particular example of someone saying “causation is not correlation?” Who says this? Given the definition of these terms, I’m not even sure that this makes grammatical sense, and It seems that the word order in this phrase is reversed from the Tufte quote. Do you mean to say that some say that “correlation is not causation?”
Do you have a specific example of scientists ever saying “nothing is related?”
LikeLike
“Do you have a particular example of someone saying “causation is not correlation?”
Yes, which is precisely why I wrote the post. I encountered 8 incidents just yesterday. Here is one, “Causation is not correlation,wet pavement does not cause rain.”
“Who says this? ”
How should I know? I’m not in the habit of actually caring enough to try to dox them all.
“I’m not even sure that this makes grammatical sense, and It seems that the word order in this phrase is reversed from the Tufte quote.”
This could all be related to my secret diabolical plot to enslave mankind.
Do you have a specific example of scientists ever saying “nothing is related?”
Yes.
LikeLike
I think the “wet pavement does not cause rain” would be an illustration of “correlation is not causation.” And in this case, wet pavement does not cause rain. So in fact, in this case, there is no cause and effect. Correlation is not causation.
Again, I think that you’re reversing or inverting the word order from the Tufte quote which is the way in which this concept is usually expressed. We start with an observed correlation and then we consider whether one of the variables in the correlation causes variation in the other variable. Sometimes there’s causation and sometimes there is not.
So it’s first observe a correlation then consider if there is causation. In that order. Expressing the concept as “causation is not correlation” seems unnecessarily confusing. Aren’t you really trying say that people say “correlation is not causation?”
So what is your example of scientists saying ” nothing is related?” Hasn’t science always been about studying cause and effect? Did this really just start about 50 years ago?
LikeLike
“And in this case, wet pavement does not cause rain. So in fact, in this case, there is no cause and effect. Correlation is not causation. ”
Of course. There is no cause and effect in the world. So whenever you see wet pavement, only a fool would think to conclude, “it’s been raining.”
“So it’s first observe a correlation then consider if there is causation.”
Sure, if you wish to completely disregard the rules of the universe and work from the assumption that all things just spring up randomly from nothingness.
So Newton’s third law, “For every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction,” or perhaps the first law of thermodynamics, suggest observable cause and effect at play in the world.
“I think that you’re reversing or inverting the word order from the Tufte quote.”
Well, it’s a quote. So in order for me to invert the word order, I would probably need to be an evil ventriloquist capable of actually speaking for the man, and diabolically reversing his word order.
“Causation is not correlation,” is actually not a phrase from the natural world, physics, or scientific law. It’s actually just a catch phrase used when discussing statistics, of which there are “lies,damned lies, and statistics.” Take the recent election polls for example. When you are dealing with statistical data full of variables and biases, it is good to understand that causation is not correlation.
When you are dealing with wet pavement however, declaring “causation is not correlation” is actually nothing more than a refusal to think critically while trying to sound smart about it.
LikeLike
I said that wet pavement does not cause rain. Which is accurate. But you changed this to “whenever you see wet pavement, only a fool would think to conclude its been raining.” Clearly, that is not what I said. And then you conclude that I’m rejecting cause and effect? I don’t get it. I believe that you either completely misunderstood what I’m saying or you’re chosing to misrepresent what I said.
Could you please explain how observation of a correlation followed by consideration of a possible causation somehow constitutes a complete disregarding of the rules of the universe? Can you support this statement, Doing what I suggest here does not disgraced the rules of the universe at all. In fact, it doesn’t make sense to do what I suggest (see correlation first, then check for possible causation) UNLESS there are rules in the universe.
I’m sorry, but I’ve never heard anyone say “causation is not correlation.” Again, you have this backwards. The oversimplified catchphrase is “correlation is not causation.” You can’t invert the word order and get the same meaning. That’s the problem here. It has nothing to do with your evil nature.
In any event, the actual phrase is “correlation does not necessarily mean or indicate causation.” This is an accurate statement, regardless of ones motives for saying it.
I’m curious have you ever actually met anyone who thinks that “nothing is related” or that everything is random? I’m afraid that I have not met such people.
LikeLike
“I said that wet pavement does not cause rain. Which is accurate.”
Once again, while that may be technically true, it does not tell the whole story. It also expresses an unwillingness to look at cause and effect.
Did I say you’ve disgraced the rules of the universe? I don’t believe I did, but that’s some good phrasing. I’ll have to use it one of these days. 🙂
LikeLike
Edward Tufte once said, “Correlation is not causation but it sure is a hint.”
Gold.
LikeLiked by 1 person
“Technically true” is not enough for you? What more do you want?
What is the “whole story” about wet pavement? How am I expressing an unwillingness to look at cause and effect? You’re quick with the claims, but not so good when it comes to supporting or explaining your claims.
I intended to type “disregard,” but the auto spell function put in the word “disgrace,” and I failed to catch it. A reading of the whole paragraph in which “disgrace” appears should make that clear.
You suggested that I wished to disregard the rules of the universe. As I stated, if you start with an observation of correlations and then move from there to a consideration of possible causes of those correlations, you are in no way disregarding the rules of the universe. A correlation sometimes is the result of causal link between the correlated variables, and sometimes it is not. Look at correlations, then consider causation, in that order. You can say that doing this disregards the rules of the universe, but I don’t see how you can support this statement. After all, this is the order given in the Tufte quote.
You have suggested that there are those who think that nothing is related, that everything is random and that correlations are never due to causation. Where are these people? Are they made of straw?
LikeLike
“I intended to type “disregard,” but the auto spell function put in the word “disgrace,” and I failed to catch it.”
David, no judgment coming from me at all. You are free to disregard, even “disgrace” the rules of the universe if you desire. I’ve even been known to encourage that very thing, so who am I to complain?
“As I stated, if you start with an observation of correlations and then move from there to a consideration of possible causes of those correlations….”
The problem with that is what do you suppose you are correlating things to?
Things exist in correlation to their cause. So your wet pavement, it must correlate with something, and that something is likely to be it’s causation.
“You have suggested that there are those who think that nothing is related, that everything is random and that correlations are never due to causation. Where are these people? Are they made of straw?”
No, I suspect they are real enough. There’s a whole subgroup of them we call atheists who deny God, (causation,) while observing creation (correlation,) all around us.
LikeLike
Yes, I understand that I’m free to disregard the rules of the universe. That’s not the issue here. The point is that you suggested that I was disregarding the rules of the universe when I clearly wasn’t. As I suspected, you can’t support or explain your suggestion that I was disregarding the rules of the universe.
I don’t understand what you mean by “what are you correlating things to?” In correlations, two or more variables are correlated with each other. So, the things (variables) that I’m correlating things with will be other things (other variables) The specifics will depend on the variables that we happen to be discussing.
You say that the thing that is correlated with wet pavement is the cause of wet pavement. Yes, sometimes. Yes, wet pavement is correlated with rain, and rain can make pavement wet. No kidding. Of course, just because the pavement is wet, it does not necessarily mean that it rained.
In any event, that’s not how you originally presented the wet pavement question. We began with “wet pavement does not cause rain.” This was presented as an example of “causation is not correlation”, and you wished to reject “causation is not correlation.”
But in fact, wet pavement does not cause rain. This is accurate. It’s not just “technically true.” So again, how is a statement of this fact an unwillingness to look at cause and effect? How would this somehow mean that I reject the conclusion that rain causes wet pavement? This is what I don’t understand. How do you support the conclusion that I am unwilling to look at cause and effect?
With respect to “denying God,” first we need to define God. When you say “God,” what do you mean? And do atheists actually say that nothing is related or that everything is random or that correlations are never due to causation? I don’t remember meeting such people.
LikeLike
“As I suspected, you can’t support or explain your suggestion that I was disregarding the rules of the universe.”
Newton’s 3rd law.
“How do you support the conclusion that I am unwilling to look at cause and effect?”
The actual comment I used, “causation is not correlation, wet pavement does not cause rain” was deliberately designed to erase any evidence of cause and effect and to shut down any examination of possible causation. That is why people use the phrase in the first place. It is a term one may apply to statistics, to polls, graphs, data and variables, but NOT a term that applies to either the natural world or physics.
“When you say “God,” what do you mean? ”
I mean, God is good, He made everything, and He loves you.
You want more specific details, you’re going to have to ask Him yourself.
LikeLike
Newton’s third law? I don’t understand. How am I disregarding Newton’s third law? Where did I do this? Please be specific in you explanation, because I don’t see how I’m doing this.
Why would saying that wet pavement does not cause rain shut down any possible examination of any possible causation? This is just a statement of fact. And who takes the position that correlations are never due to causation, because this is the only position which would shut down any and all examination of cause and effect? Who says correlation is never due to causation, and who then uses this to shut down examination of cause and effect? Where are these people?
Further, if the concept in question is stated correctly, the concept that correlation does not always indicate causation does indeed apply to the natural world or physics. This accurately describes the natural world. And this concept does not eliminate examination of cause and effect or disregard the rules of the universe.
The hypothesis that there is a good and loving God who made everything is not well correlated with or supported by observation of the natural world (creation). This hypothesis can be “denied” without the need to also conclude that nothing is related or that correlations are never due to a causal link. So, I’m still looking for those folks who say that correlation is never due to causation.
LikeLike
“God who made everything is not well correlated with or supported by observation of the natural world (creation)…..So, I’m still looking for those folks who say that correlation is never due to causation.”
I think you just found one of those folks, David. You.
For a lot of different reasons I would beg you to reexamine that form of thinking. It’s going to deprive you of seeing connection and relationship among variables, but also having connection and relationship with people, and ultimately connection and relationship with your Creator.
LikeLike
Ok, first, it does not logically follow that if one rejects one particular hypothesized case of a possible correlation-causal link, then one is saying that correlation is never due to causation. This is incorrect. The one position clearly does not lead to or imply the other position, and the conclusion that you’ve drawn here about me is not a logical one.
The particular case of “creation-loving God” does not represent the set of all possible correlation-causation links. So, one can easily say that there is no cause and effect in this one case or that this one case is simply not so, while noting and agreeing that there are plenty of other cases of genuine cause and effect. This is because sometimes correlation are due to causal links and sometimes it’s not. Each hypothesized link has to be considered separately and on its own merits.
So, it is wildly inaccurate to say that my position is that correlation is never due to causation or that I am “one of those folks.” Either you don’t understand the logic here or you’ve misinterpreted what I’ve said or you chose to misrepresent my position by putting words in my mouth.
Now, as to the particular case, I’ve examined the hypothesized connection quite thoroughly. “Good and loving God” does not correlate well with the natural world. Darwin once said something to the effect that a devil’s chaplain could write quite a sermon based solely on observation of the natural world. He had a point.
Loving God? Small pox? No correlation.
LikeLike
I’m sorry David, I wish I could help you to see the relationship. I realize you don’t understand, but you’re actually the one attempting to invert things.
My position is that causation and correlation are related and we see evidence of this in the natural world. You are defending the idea that causation is NOT correlation, while at the same time trying to correlate God and small pox, and falsely concluding this means that either God does not exist or God is not good.
So I guess in your case you should probably return to the idea that “wet pavement does not cause rain.”
LikeLike
Why can’t I cite small pox if we are trying to correlate creation and a good and loving God? Isn’t small pox a part of creation? What’s wrong with correlating small pox and God?
I never said that there are never any relationships between correlation and causation. Never said that. I never took the position that correlation and causation can never be related. Don’t misrepresent what I said. Don’t put words in my mouth.
Yes, sometimes causation and correlation are related, and yes, we see this in the natural world. Of course that’s true! I’ve never said otherwise. However, sometimes we see correlations when there is no causation, including in the natural world, so correlation does not always, inevitably and automatically means that there are causal links. So, you have to examine each case of correlation as it is observed. Do you understand how this is different from saying that correlation and causation are never related?
I am not “defending the idea that causation is not correlation” if for no other reason than when the words are in this order, the phrase does not make any sense. I’ve tried again and again to explain my position, but you just don’t get it. And as I have said repeatedly, the correct oversimplified catchphrase would be “correlation does not mean causation.” If you can’t even quote the catchphrase correctly, inhave little hope that you will be able to understand anything else I might say here.
LikeLike
Lol! You are something else, David. First off, I have not accused you or told you anything. I am simply taking note of the fact that this particular phrase is often misused and misapplied. I am also observing that your application of the concept is inconsistent and you are trying to have it both ways.
LikeLike
You said specifically that I was defending the idea that “causation is nor correlation.” This what you told me I was doing. This is what I was responding to, and this was more than just noting misuse of a phrase.
I not saying that you “accused” me of something. I’m saying that you misunderstood or misrepresented my views. I saying that you attributed certain positions to me when I did not take these positions. So I tried to make the needed corrections and clarifications.
Yes, you’ve noted that a particular phrase is often misapplied and misused. Well, you would know. The problem is that you attempted to attribute misuse and misapplication to me (see “you are defending…”). How have I misused or misapplied the phrase?
My application of the concept is not inconsistent. It reflects reality.
LikeLike
“My application of the concept is not inconsistent. It reflects reality.”
Of course it does, David. The problem being that you define “reality” from a totally subjective perspective. Reality is just this constant thing that you get to define, observe, and reflect. And you put all your faith in that, take great pride in your own ability to perceive reality correctly.
I have learned that how we define “reality” is really very limited, very subjective, and full of human biases. Right on the other side of all that self, pride, fear, ego, is God. He’s right there. For some reason there are people in the world who cannot see him, who refuse to see causation and correlation, who cling fiercely to their subjective definitions of alleged “reality.” I have no idea why that is, but I always find it curious.
LikeLike
As a Counselor, because communication breakdowns are the primary reason for conflict, I present the following quote to all my clients at their initial consultation. “I know that you believe you understand what you think I said, but I’m not sure you realize that what you heard is not what I meant”.
Just as correlation is not causation, hearing is not listening, confusion is not understanding, sarcasm is not necessarily ironic, and disagreement of opinions doesn’t necessitate a distinction between absolute right or wrong.
Chill out and breathe in the positive mood always presented here, often humorous, usually very insightful, regularly inspirational,and always entertaining.
LikeLiked by 1 person
So it’s not a reality that sometimes correlations are not due to causation? Where have I refused to see causation and correlation?
And you don’t define reality from a totally subjective perspective? Your definitions of reality are not subjective? Maybe when you “see God,” you’re just clinging to a biased and subjective definition or perception of reality. No reason to think that your “reality” is less subjective than mine, so all you’re saying here is that no one knows what reality is. No one can know anything. This is just the philosophical equivalent of mutual assured destruction.
LikeLike
“No one can know anything. This is just the philosophical equivalent of mutual assured destruction.”
LOL! In a way, you are quite right.
“Mutual assured destruction” is actually called dying to self. As we let go of those parts of ourselves that we cling to so fiercely, like pride, ego, fear, control, we begin to make way for objective reality, reality outside of ourselves, reality not dependent on us subjectively reflecting it. That is where you find God, on the other side of yourself.
So that is why we sometimes speak of objective truth versus subjective truth.
LikeLike
You can’t start by talking about how subjective everything is and then end up with ….”objective truth.” If reality is subjective, then it’s going to stay subjective. It isn’t going to magically become objective. You can’t start with everyone’s reality being subjective and then jump to…”oh, but I have something objective.”
“Letting go” just takes you to a different subjective reality in which you convince yourself that you’ve found something objective. But it’s still subjective, because everyone’s reality is subjective. When you mutually destroy everyone’s reality by emphasizing subjectivity, the end result is the opposite of “making way for objective reality.”
LikeLike
Here, David. Lots of fun stuff about reality if you’re interested.
“What is Reality”
https://www.newscientist.com/round-up/reality/
LikeLike
That’s nice, but I don’t think this is going to solve your problem of getting to objective from subjective.
LikeLike
I don’t have a problem getting from subjective to objective. I weave between those two every day. You are the one insisting that reality itself must stay constant.
LikeLike
Did I insist that reality must stay constant? Where did I do this? And what does “stay constant” even mean? I don’t follow.
If you start with the idea that reality is subjective or that how we define reality is subjective, then you can’t weave between subjective and objective. If you start with subjective, then you’re stuck with subjective. You can claim that you weave into the objective, but that’s just an illusion because …remember… reality is subjective, and that includes your reality, too. If reality is subjective, then claims that can get to the objective from the subjective are not supportable. You can’t know if you have something objective when reality is subjective.
Now, I don’t have a big problem with uncertainty and limitations on knowledge and subjectivity. But if this is your starting point, then you can’t jump up and claim to have objective reality available to you. You blew up that possibility when you went all subjective on us.
LikeLike
“You blew up that possibility when you went all subjective on us.”
LOL! “US?” How many of you are there, David?
“If you start with subjective, then you’re stuck with subjective.”
I don’t know if you’ve ever watched people with mild autism, but that is something they often struggle with. In order to communicate well in relationship to others, we must be able to bob and weave between our own subjective reality and the subjective reality of someone else. Objective reality is something different, something outside of ourselves, often mutually agreed upon and hard to deny, like walking into a fence post for example. We can indeed move from subjective reality to more objective reality and back again. That’s all I was saying.
LikeLike
You said that how we define reality is really very limited, very subjective and full of human biases.
Given that, how do you establish or determine what is really objective reality or objective truth? How do you move from the flawed, limited, biased and subjective to the objective? Even if the objective exists, how will you determine what it is? How do we draw conclusion about that which is outside of ourselves when each of us has a reality which is personal, subjective, limited and full of bias, especially when we’re talking about a non-material outside thing like God? See how you blow things up when you focus on subjectivity?
You tried to dismiss much of what I said by focusing on subjectivity and uncertainty and limitations, and you questioned my ability to perceive reality. But now you want to emphasize the concept of objective reality and claim that you can weave between subjective and objective, apparently at will. Now there are things that are mutually agreed upon and hard to deny. Now reality isn’t so subjective after all. So with this retreat from focusing on subjectivity, I guess that you can’t dismiss what I was saying.
LikeLike
“Given that, how do you establish or determine what is really objective reality or objective truth?”
That’s the real challenge,isn’t it? We have to become really aware of our own biases and pay attention to how the self is perceiving reality. When we can remove or own subjectivity from the equation, objective truth begins to reveal itself.
“You tried to dismiss much of what I said by focusing on subjectivity and uncertainty and limitations, and you questioned my ability to perceive reality.”
Not really, David, but that’s certainly what it feels like,isn’t it? People do that to me all the time. We don’t like feeling as if our ability to perceive reality is being questioned. That’s what subjectivity is like, we believe that we ourselves define reality, so when someone questions our subjectivity, we feel a potential threat, as if reality itself is in danger of collapsing.
LikeLike
You can’t remove your own subjectivity from the equation. That’s the thing about subjectivity. You can’t start by talking about imperfections and limitations and personal biases and subjectivity and then say, “oh, but I can be objective.” That’s not legit.
When I said my application of the concept reflected reality, you went straight to focusing on the subjectivity of reality, etc. in an attempt to invalidate what I was saying, you stated that I defined reality from a “totally subjective perspective.” So yeah, you did try to dismiss much of what I said via appeal to the subjectivity of reality.
I didn’t feel “threatened,” but I did feel that you didn’t really appreciate where your approach was going to lead. When I pointed out where a focus on subjectivity leads, you decided that you needed to start talking about how you could perceive objective reality and how you could weave back and forth between subjective and objective. That’s fine, but that means that my perception of reality is objective, too. I must be perceiving reality correctly after all, and my position and comments are valid.
LikeLike
Brilliant, as always! And on target.
LikeLike
In the 1990’s I was performing research in a specific type of crystalline material growth. I had just read Dorian Shainin’s “Hunt for the Red X”. I was struggling with the fact that despite the highly controlled conditions for chemical flow, heat, pressure and laboratory environmental conditions, the growth rate had excessive variability. All of the thermodynamic conditions were controlled and monitored, but they appeared to be stable and repeatable. None of the measured variables could account for the non-repeatable growth rate. Shainin suggested that there is always a primary cause for variability in processes, and challenged the readers to take a bigger view of possible causes, especially when unexplained behavior was being observed.
Taking his lead, I began to increase the circumference of the circle of influence to take in other external causes, no matter how unrelated they seemed to be. One day, I decided on a whim to see if outside temperature and atmospheric pressure made any contributions to my problem. The problem was, I didn’t have any sensors outside the building nor did I have a record of that data. So I decided to go to the library and get the newspaper weather data for a 3 month period. After plotting the growth rate versus outside atmospheric pressure, there was a slight correlation with an r^2 correlation coefficient of about .3. Something could possibly be there, but not conclusive, and certainly not a strong effect. Then I looked at outside temperature and there it was. An r^2 of around .95, and to newspaper data no less! Had anyone told me emphatically that the outside temperature was causing my problem before having the data, I would have deemed them crazy.
Doesn’t that exact same thing happen with our perceptions and notions about all sorts of things? I think the use of the phrase should be more read “Correlation does not imply causation.” I agree with that. Nevertheless, in my case, correlation identified causation. After modifying the exhaust system by installing a temperature controlled heating element, the variability was all but eliminated.
I have never met anyone personally that subscribes to there not being cause and effect. I have met people though that dismiss the idea that there are effects with no identifiable causes. That is the nature of the world we live in. Is quantum entanglement a thing? Maybe. Do we really know for certain how the two slit experiment works? Sort of. But in either case the causes are fantastic to the imagination, if not almost incomprehensible in their implications. Is there a force outside of our 4 dimensions? Who knows for sure… it seems so.
LikeLiked by 1 person