[firebrand39]

I have been privately lumping causation and correlation together for decades now. It freed my thinking. While the two are certainly different, it is also true that causation does not have the set-in-stoneness/invariability that is commonly taken for granted. Witness the recent discussion about nasa's impossible-space-propulsion.

In terms of a human acquiring knowledge, correlation certainly is the first step. It is also called observation. Causation just seems to be a subsequent underpinning with context and concepts.

[DanBC]

How do you protect yourself against bias caused by coincidence?

[firebrand39]

Well, in the first place I cannot. I take the thing as it is. This is the risk-taking part. But, I guess, that is why I have to move from correlation to causation or rather embed this one correlation into a broader context. Because it protects me against correlational flukes.

Thanks for this inspiring question.