[dllthomas]

Evidence of a correlation is all that's necessary to do that, scientist or not. What a correlation tells me is that if I observe A, I am likely to observe B. In the case of rain and puddles, there is a temporal component that seems to be confusing you. Rain now is correlated with puddles for a while in the future. Puddles now may not be correlated with rain now or in the future[1]. Observing puddles now, I can't tell you anything about rain in the future because there is no correlation, not because there is no causation.

[1] If the weather in the area tends to be the same day to day, then I can absolutely predict rain tomorrow based on puddles today, to occasionally be frustrated by weather change or sprinklers.

[lutusp]

> there is a temporal component that seems to be confusing you.

I am not confused. Confusing correlation with causation is a very common logical error -- you are not alone.

[dllthomas]

Please respond to the point of my post, if you are going to respond. "I'm not confused, you are" adds nothing to the discussion - obviously, we both think that. And yes, confusing correlation with causation is a common logical error - one that, I believe, you have become oversensitive to such that you are spotting it where it doesn't exist. This, I thought, was already established before your post here.

[lutusp]

> "I'm not confused, you are" adds nothing to the discussion

That might be true if anyone had said it (avoid rhetorical escalation).

> And yes, confusing correlation with causation is a common logical error - one that, I believe, you have become oversensitive to such that you are spotting it where it doesn't exist.

The post that started this thread correctly identifies a case of touting a correlation as though it represents a cause-effect relationship. This is very common in popular science journalism, where data sets that barely represent a correlation are described as though they were cause-effect relationships, and begin to shape public policy well in advance of, and sometimes in the perpetual absence of, any effort to establish a cause-effect link between some A and some B.

[dllthomas]

The entirety of my objection is to the notion that the word "predicts" implies causation. I didn't read the article closely, and assumed it was talking about correlation primarily because of the title. If the article generally is making stronger claims, by all means object, but object to the right thing. "Predicts" carries no implication of causation. "Poll results predict the election" is making a claim about a correlation. "The weatherman predicts the weather" is making a claim about a correlation. Heck, even "the tarot cards predict the future" is making a (false) claim about a correlation. Correlations are real and useful things that do or don't exist in any given case, and which can be used to make predictions. Where causation is necessary is in predicting the results of a change or intervention. If I publish higher poll numbers, that won't make my candidate win. If I make it rain, that will make there be puddles.

[dllthomas]

> That might be true if anyone had said it (avoid rhetorical escalation).

You have a habit of denying the obvious that is leading me to believe you are trolling, your profile and post history to the contrary.

You said, word for word, "I am not confused."

You then proceeded to say, "Confusing correlation with causation is a very common logical error -- you are not alone." This is quite clearly a statement that I am confused about correlation vs. causation.

Therefore, semantically, you said "I am not confused, you are" plus the well established point that confusion was related to correlation and causation.