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.
THATS THE JOKEI see the confusion now. It’s evident in the thread below. Carry on.
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.
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.
There is no correlation with events with probability 1
isn’t that just Bayesian apologist propaganda?
*jumps in an unlabelled Frequentist van* “Floor it!”
Don’t even need to bring probability into this. Death is certain, and correlation requires variance.
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.