Correlation does not imply causation

The phrase "correlation does not imply causation" refers to the inability to legitimately deduce a cause-
and-effect relationship between two events or variables solely on the basis of an observed association or
correlation between them.[1][2] The idea that "correlation implies causation" is an example of a
questionable-cause logical fallacy, in which two events occurring together are taken to have established a
cause-and-effect relationship. This fallacy is also known by the Latin phrase cum hoc ergo propter hoc
('with this, therefore because of this'). This differs from the fallacy known as post hoc ergo propter hoc
("after this, therefore because of this"), in which an event following another is seen as a necessary
consequence of the former event, and from conflation, the errant merging of two events, ideas, databases,
etc., into one.

As with any logical fallacy, identifying that the reasoning behind an argument is flawed does not
necessarily imply that the resulting conclusion is false. Statistical methods have been proposed that use
correlation as the basis for hypothesis tests for causality, including the Granger causality test and convergent
cross mapping.

Usage and meaning of terms

"Imply"

In casual use, the word "implies" loosely means suggests, rather than requires. However, in logic, the
technical use of the word "implies" means "is a sufficient condition for." [3] That is the meaning intended by
statisticians when they say causation is not certain. Indeed, p implies q has the technical meaning of the
material conditional: if p then q symbolized as p → q. That is, "if circumstance p is true, then q follows." In
that sense, it is always correct to say "Correlation does not imply causation."

"Cause"

The word "cause" (or "causation") has multiple meanings in English. In philosophical terminology. "cause"
can refer to necessary, sufficient, or contributing causes. In examining correlation, "cause" is most often
used to mean "one contributing cause" (but not necessarily the only contributing cause).

If there is causation, there is correlation but also a sequence in time from cause to effect, a plausible
mechanism, and sometimes common and intermediate causes. Correlation is often used to infer causation
because it is a necessary condition: that is, if A causes B, then A and B must necessarily be correlated.
However it is not a sufficient condition.

Causal analysis
Causal analysis is the field of experimental design and statistics pertaining to establishing cause and
effect.[4][5] For any two correlated events, A and B, there are four possible relationships:

A causes B (direct causation);

B causes A (reverse causation);
 A and B are both caused by C (common causation);
There is no connection between A and B; the correlation is a
coincidence.

These relationships are not mutually exclusive; they may exist in any
combination. For example, it is possible that both A can cause effect B and
B can cause effect A (bidirectional or cyclic causation). For example, CT
scans cause brain cancers (through the delivered ionizing radiation), but
brain cancers also cause persons to get a CT scan (the symptoms prompt
doctors to order CT scans). Thus the relationship between brain cancers and
CT scans is bidirectional.[6][7]

No conclusion can thus be made regarding the existence or the direction of Dinosaur illiteracy and
a cause-and-effect relationship only from the fact that A and B are extinction may be
correlated. Determining whether there is an actual cause-and-effect correlated, but that would
relationship, and if so which direction the causality is, requires further not mean the variables had
investigation. If the relationship between A and B is statistically significant, a causal relationship.
the final relationship in the list above ("coincidence") may be statistically
ruled out, but the correlation itself will not clarify whether A caused B, B
caused A, or A and B were both caused by some other effect, C.

In philosophy and physics

The nature of causality is systematically investigated in several academic disciplines, including philosophy
and physics.

In academia, there are a significant number of theories on causality; The Oxford Handbook of Causation
(Beebee, Hitchcock & Menzies 2009) encompasses 770 pages. Among the more influential theories within
philosophy are Aristotle's Four causes and Al-Ghazali's occasionalism.[8] David Hume argued that beliefs
about causality are based on experience, and experience similarly based on the assumption that the future
models the past, which in turn can be based only on experience, which leads to circular logic. In
conclusion, he asserted that causality is not based on actual reasoning: only correlation can actually be
perceived.[9] Immanuel Kant, according to Beebee, Hitchcock & Menzies (2009), held that "a causal
principle according to which every event has a cause, or follows according to a causal law, cannot be
established through induction as a purely empirical claim, since it would then lack strict universality, or
necessity".

Outside the field of philosophy, theories of causation can be identified in classical mechanics, statistical
mechanics, quantum mechanics, spacetime theories, biology, social sciences, and law.[8] To establish a
correlation as causal within physics, it is normally understood that the cause and the effect must connect
through a local mechanism (cf. for instance the concept of impact) or a nonlocal mechanism (cf. the concept
of field), in accordance with known laws of nature.

From the point of view of thermodynamics, universal properties of causes as compared to effects have been
identified through the Second Law of Thermodynamics, confirming the ancient, medieval and Cartesian[10]
view that "the cause is greater than the effect" for the particular case of thermodynamic free energy. That in
turn is challenged by popular interpretations of the concepts of nonlinear systems and the butterfly effect in
which small events cause large effects because of, respectively, unpredictability and an unlikely triggering
of large amounts of potential energy.

Causality construed from counterfactual states

Intuitively, causation seems to require not just a correlation, but a counterfactual dependence. Suppose that
a student performed poorly on a test and guesses that the cause was his not studying. To prove this, one
thinks of the counterfactual – the same student writing the same test under the same circumstances but
having studied the night before. If one could rewind history, and change only one small thing (making the
student study for the exam), then causation could be observed (by comparing version 1 to version 2).
Because one cannot rewind history and replay events after making small controlled changes, causation can
only be inferred, never exactly known. That is referred to as the Fundamental Problem of Causal
Inference – it is impossible to directly observe causal effects.[11]

A major goal of scientific experiments and statistical methods is to approximate as best possible the
counterfactual state of the world.[12] For example, one could run an experiment on identical twins who
were known to consistently get the same grades on their tests. One twin is sent to study for six hours while
the other is sent to the amusement park. If their test scores suddenly diverged by a large degree, that would
be strong evidence that studying (or going to the amusement park) had a causal effect on test scores. In that
case, correlation between studying and test scores would almost certainly imply causation.

Well-designed experimental studies replace equality of individuals as in the previous example by equality of
groups. The objective is to construct two groups that are similar except for the treatment that the groups
receive. That is achieved by selecting subjects from a single population and randomly assigning them to
two or more groups. The likelihood of the groups behaving similarly to one another (on average) rises with
the number of subjects in each group. If the groups are essentially equivalent except for the treatment they
receive, and a difference in the outcome for the groups is observed, then this constitutes evidence that the
treatment is responsible for the outcome, or in other words the treatment causes the observed effect.
However, an observed effect could also be caused "by chance", for example as a result of random
perturbations in the population. Statistical tests exist to quantify the likelihood of erroneously concluding
that an observed difference exists when in fact it does not exist (for example, see P-value).

Examples in Medicine

1. Obesity and Type 2 Diabetes

There is a strong correlation between obesity and type 2 diabetes. However, this does
not mean that obesity causes type 2 diabetes. Rather, both conditions may be caused
by a common factor, such as a sedentary lifestyle and unhealthy diet. Additionally,
some people with type 2 diabetes may be thin, while others who are obese may not
have diabetes.

2. Smoking and Lung Cancer

Smoking is strongly correlated with lung cancer. However, this does not mean that
smoking causes lung cancer. While smoking is a major risk factor for lung cancer, there
are other factors that may contribute to the development of lung cancer, such as
exposure to environmental toxins and genetic factors.

3. Vitamin D and Multiple Sclerosis

 Some studies have found a correlation between low vitamin D levels and multiple
sclerosis (MS). However, this does not necessarily mean that low vitamin D levels
cause MS. It's possible that people with MS have lower vitamin D levels because of
their decreased mobility and sun exposure, rather than the other way around.

In conclusion, correlation does not always equal causation, and it's important to carefully consider other
factors that may be involved in any observed relationship between two variables.

Causality predicted by an extrapolation of trends

When experimental studies are impossible, and only pre-existing data are available, as is usually the case
for example in economics, regression analysis can be used. Factors other than the potential causative
variable of interest are controlled for by including them as regressors in addition to the regressor
representing the variable of interest. False inferences of causation due to reverse causation (or wrong
estimates of the magnitude of causation because of the presence of bidirectional causation) can be avoided
by using explanators (regressors) that are necessarily exogenous, such as physical explanators like rainfall
amount (as a determinant of, say, futures prices), lagged variables whose values were determined before the
dependent variable's value was determined, instrumental variables for the explanators (chosen based on
their known exogeneity), etc. See causality in statistics and economics. Spurious correlation from mutual
influence from a third, common, causative variable, is harder to avoid: the model must be specified such
that there is a theoretical reason to believe that no such underlying causative variable has been omitted from
its analysis.

Examples of illogically inferring causation from correlation

B causes A (reverse causation or reverse causality)

Reverse causation or reverse causality or wrong direction is an informal fallacy of questionable cause
where cause and effect are reversed. The cause is said to be the effect and vice versa.

Example 1
The faster that windmills are observed to rotate, the more wind is observed.
Therefore, wind is caused by the rotation of windmills. (Or, simply put: windmills, as their
name indicates, are machines used to produce wind.)

In this example, the correlation (simultaneity) between windmill activity and wind velocity does not imply
that wind is caused by windmills. It is rather the other way around, as suggested by the fact that wind does
not need windmills to exist, while windmills need wind to rotate. Wind can be observed in places where
there are no windmills or non-rotating windmills—and there are good reasons to believe that wind existed
before the invention of windmills.

Example 2
Subjects with low cholesterol correlate with an increase in mortality.
Therefore, low cholesterol increases your risk of mortality.

It is the other way around since the disease, such as cancer, causes a low cholesterol because of a myriad of
factors, such as weight loss, and an increase in mortality.[13] This is also seen with ex-smokers. Ex-smokers
are more likely to die of lung cancer than current smokers.[14] When lifelong smokers are told they have
lung cancer, many quit smoking. This change can make it seem as if ex-smokers are more likely to die of
lung cancer than current smokers. This can also be seen in alcoholics. As alcoholics become diagnosed
with cirrhosis of the liver, many quit drinking. However, they also experience an increased risk of mortality.
In these instances, it is the diseases that cause an increased risk of mortality, but the increased mortality is
attributed to the beneficial effects that follow the diagnosis, making healthy changes look unhealthy.

Example 3

In other cases it may simply be unclear which is the cause and which is the effect. For example:

Children that watch a lot of TV are the most violent. Clearly, TV makes children more
violent.

This could easily be the other way round; that is, violent children like watching more TV than less violent
ones.

Example 4

A correlation between recreational drug use and psychiatric disorders might be either way around: perhaps
the drugs cause the disorders, or perhaps people use drugs to self medicate for preexisting conditions.
Gateway drug theory may argue that marijuana usage leads to usage of harder drugs, but hard drug usage
may lead to marijuana usage (see also confusion of the inverse). Indeed, in the social sciences where
controlled experiments often cannot be used to discern the direction of causation, this fallacy can fuel long-
standing scientific arguments. One such example can be found in education economics, between the
screening/signaling and human capital models: it could either be that having innate ability enables one to
complete an education, or that completing an education builds one's ability.

Example 5

A historical example of this is that Europeans in the Middle Ages believed that lice were beneficial to health
since there would rarely be any lice on sick people. The reasoning was that the people got sick because the
lice left. The real reason however is that lice are extremely sensitive to body temperature. A small increase
of body temperature, such as in a fever, makes the lice look for another host. The medical thermometer had
not yet been invented and so that increase in temperature was rarely noticed. Noticeable symptoms came
later, which gave the impression that the lice had left before the person became sick.[15]

In other cases, two phenomena can each be a partial cause of the other; consider poverty and lack of
education, or procrastination and poor self-esteem. One making an argument based on these two
phenomena must however be careful to avoid the fallacy of circular cause and consequence. Poverty is a
cause of lack of education, but it is not the sole cause, and vice versa.

Third factor C (the common-causal variable) causes both A and B

The third-cause fallacy (also known as ignoring a common cause[16] or questionable cause[16]) is a
logical fallacy in which a spurious relationship is confused for causation. It asserts that X causes Y when in
reality, both X and Y are caused by Z. It is a variation on the post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy and a
member of the questionable cause group of fallacies.

All of those examples deal with a lurking variable, which is simply a hidden third variable that affects both
causes of the correlation. A difficulty often also arises where the third factor, though fundamentally different
from A and B, is so closely related to A and/or B as to be confused with them or very difficult to
scientifically disentangle from them (see Example 4).

Example 1
Sleeping with one's shoes on is strongly correlated with waking up with a headache.
 Therefore, sleeping with one's shoes on causes headache.

The above example commits the correlation-implies-causation fallacy, as it prematurely concludes that
sleeping with one's shoes on causes headache. A more plausible explanation is that both are caused by a
third factor, in this case going to bed drunk, which thereby gives rise to a correlation. So the conclusion is
false.

Example 2
Young children who sleep with the light on are much more likely to develop myopia in later
life.
Therefore, sleeping with the light on causes myopia.

This is a scientific example that resulted from a study at the University of Pennsylvania Medical Center.
Published in the May 13, 1999, issue of Nature,[17] the study received much coverage at the time in the
popular press.[18] However, a later study at Ohio State University did not find that infants sleeping with the
light on caused the development of myopia. It did find a strong link between parental myopia and the
development of child myopia, also noting that myopic parents were more likely to leave a light on in their
children's bedroom.[19][20][21][22] In this case, the cause of both conditions is parental myopia, and the
above-stated conclusion is false.

Example 3
As ice cream sales increase, the rate of drowning deaths increases sharply.
Therefore, ice cream consumption causes drowning.

This example fails to recognize the importance of time of year and temperature to ice cream sales. Ice cream
is sold during the hot summer months at a much greater rate than during colder times, and it is during these
hot summer months that people are more likely to engage in activities involving water, such as swimming.
The increased drowning deaths are simply caused by more exposure to water-based activities, not ice
cream. The stated conclusion is false.

Example 4
A hypothetical study shows a relationship between test anxiety scores and shyness
scores, with a statistical r value (strength of correlation) of +.59.[23]
Therefore, it may be simply concluded that shyness, in some part, causally influences test
anxiety.

However, as encountered in many psychological studies, another variable, a "self-consciousness score", is

discovered that has a sharper correlation (+.73) with shyness. This suggests a possible "third variable"
problem, however, when three such closely related measures are found, it further suggests that each may
have bidirectional tendencies (see "bidirectional variable", above), being a cluster of correlated values each
influencing one another to some extent. Therefore, the simple conclusion above may be false.

Example 5
Since the 1950s, both the atmospheric CO2 level and obesity levels have increased
sharply.
Hence, atmospheric CO2 causes obesity.

Richer populations tend to eat more food and produce more CO2 .

Example 6
HDL ("good") cholesterol is negatively correlated with incidence of heart attack.
Therefore, taking medication to raise HDL decreases the chance of having a heart attack.
Further research[24] has called this conclusion into question. Instead, it may be that other underlying factors,
like genes, diet and exercise, affect both HDL levels and the likelihood of having a heart attack; it is
possible that medicines may affect the directly measurable factor, HDL levels, without affecting the chance
of heart attack.

Bidirectional causation: A causes B, and B causes A

Causality is not necessarily one-way; in a predator-prey relationship, predator numbers affect prey numbers,
but prey numbers, i.e. food supply, also affect predator numbers. Another well-known example is that
cyclists have a lower Body Mass Index than people who do not cycle. This is often explained by assuming
that cycling increases physical activity levels and therefore decreases BMI. Because results from
prospective studies on people who increase their bicycle use show a smaller effect on BMI than cross-
sectional studies, there may be some reverse causality as well (i.e. people with a lower BMI are more likely
to cycle).[25]

The relationship between A and B is coincidental

The two variables are not related at all, but correlate by chance. The more things are examined, the more
likely it is that two unrelated variables will appear to be related. For example:

The result of the last home game by the Washington Commanders prior to the presidential
election predicted the outcome of every presidential election from 1936 to 2000 inclusive,
despite the fact that the outcomes of football games had nothing to do with the outcome of
the popular election. This streak was finally broken in 2004 (or 2012 using an alternative
formulation of the original rule).
The Mierscheid law, which correlates the Social Democratic Party of Germany's share of the
popular vote with the size of crude steel production in Western Germany.
Alternating bald–hairy Russian leaders: A bald (or obviously balding) state leader of Russia
has succeeded a non-bald ("hairy") one, and vice versa, for nearly 200 years.
The Bible code, Hebrew words predicting historical events supposedly hidden within the
Torah: the huge number of combinations of letters makes appearances of any word in
sufficiently lengthy text statistically insignificant.

Use of correlation as scientific evidence

Much of scientific evidence is based upon a correlation of variables[26] that are observed to occur together.
Scientists are careful to point out that correlation does not necessarily mean causation. The assumption that
A causes B simply because A correlates with B is often not accepted as a legitimate form of argument.

However, sometimes people commit the opposite fallacy of dismissing correlation entirely. That would
dismiss a large swath of important scientific evidence.[26] Since it may be difficult or ethically impossible to
run controlled double-blind studies, correlational evidence from several different angles may be useful for
prediction despite failing to provide evidence for causation. For example, social workers might be
interested in knowing how child abuse relates to academic performance. Although it would be unethical to
perform an experiment in which children are randomly assigned to receive or not receive abuse, researchers
can look at existing groups using a non-experimental correlational design. If in fact a negative correlation
exists between abuse and academic performance, researchers could potentially use this knowledge of a
statistical correlation to make predictions about children outside the study who experience abuse even
though the study failed to provide causal evidence that abuse decreases academic performance.[27] The
combination of limited available methodologies with the dismissing correlation fallacy has on occasion
been used to counter a scientific finding. For example, the tobacco industry has historically relied on a
dismissal of correlational evidence to reject a link between tobacco smoke and lung cancer,[28] as did
biologist and statistician Ronald Fisher (frequently on the industry's behalf).[list 1]

Correlation is a valuable type of scientific evidence in fields such as medicine, psychology, and sociology.
Correlations must first be confirmed as real, and every possible causative relationship must then be
systematically explored. In the end, correlation alone cannot be used as evidence for a cause-and-effect
relationship between a treatment and benefit, a risk factor and a disease, or a social or economic factor and
various outcomes. It is one of the most abused types of evidence because it is easy and even tempting to
come to premature conclusions based upon the preliminary appearance of a correlation.[28]

See also
Affirming the consequent – Type of fallacious argument (logical fallacy)
Alignments of random points – Phenomenon in statistics
Anecdotal evidence – Evidence relying on personal testimony
Apophenia – Tendency to perceive connections between unrelated things
Post hoc analysis – Statistical analyses that were not specified before the data were
seen
Multiple comparisons problem – Statistical interpretation with many tests
Look-elsewhere effect
Data dredging – Misuse of data analysis
Testing hypotheses suggested by the data – when statistical hypotheses are tested with
the same dataset that suggested them, they are likely to be accepted, even though not
necessarily true due to circular reasoning
Bible code – Purported set of secret messages encoded within the Hebrew text of the Torah
Coincidence#Causality – Concurrence of events with no connection
Confounding – Variable or factor in causal inference
Confusion of the inverse – Logical fallacy
French paradox – Observation that amount heart diseases French people have is much less
than is expected
Design of experiments – Design of tasks
Joint effect – Apparent, but false, correlation between causally-independent variables
Mediation (statistics) – Statistical model
Normally distributed and uncorrelated does not imply independent
Pirates and global warming – Satirical deity
Reproducibility – Aspect of scientific research
Spurious relationship – Apparent, but false, correlation between causally-independent
variables
Teleology – Thinking in terms of destiny or purpose

References
1. Tufte 2006, p. 5
 2. Aldrich, John (1995). "Correlations Genuine and Spurious in Pearson and Yule" (https://doi.
org/10.1214%2Fss%2F1177009870). Statistical Science. 10 (4): 364–376.
doi:10.1214/ss/1177009870 (https://doi.org/10.1214%2Fss%2F1177009870).
JSTOR 2246135 (https://www.jstor.org/stable/2246135).
3. "Sufficient" (http://mathworld.wolfram.com/Sufficient.html). Wolfram. 2019-12-02. Retrieved
2019-12-03.
4. Rohlfing, Ingo; Schneider, Carsten Q. (2018). "A Unifying Framework for Causal Analysis in
Set-Theoretic Multimethod Research" (https://publications.ceu.edu/sites/default/files/publicat
ions/0049124115626170.pdf) (PDF). Sociological Methods & Research. 47 (1): 37–63.
doi:10.1177/0049124115626170 (https://doi.org/10.1177%2F0049124115626170).
S2CID 124804330 (https://api.semanticscholar.org/CorpusID:124804330). Archived (https://
ghostarchive.org/archive/20221009/https://publications.ceu.edu/sites/default/files/publication
s/0049124115626170.pdf) (PDF) from the original on 2022-10-09. Retrieved 29 February
2020.
5. Brady, Henry E. (7 July 2011). "Causation and Explanation in Social Science" (https://www.o
xfordhandbooks.com/view/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199604456.001.0001/oxfordhb-97801996
04456-e-049). The Oxford Handbook of Political Science.
doi:10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199604456.013.0049 (https://doi.org/10.1093%2Foxfordhb%2F9
780199604456.013.0049). Retrieved 29 February 2020.
6. Smoll, Nicolas R; Brady, Zoe; Scurrah, Katrina J; Lee, Choonsik; Berrington de González,
Amy; Mathews, John D (6 July 2023). "Computed tomography scan radiation and brain
cancer incidence". Neuro-Oncology. 25 (7): 1368–1376. doi:10.1093/neuonc/noad012 (http
s://doi.org/10.1093%2Fneuonc%2Fnoad012).
7. Smoll, Nicolas R.; Mathews, John D.; Scurrah, Katrina J. (August 2020). "CT scans in
childhood predict subsequent brain cancer: Finite mixture modelling can help separate
reverse causation scans from those that may be causal". Cancer Epidemiology. 67: 101732.
doi:10.1016/j.canep.2020.101732 (https://doi.org/10.1016%2Fj.canep.2020.101732).
8. Beebee, Hitchcock & Menzies 2009
9. Morris, William Edward (2001). "David Hume" (http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/spr2001/ent
ries/hume/#CausationN). The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy.
10. Lloyd, A.C. (1976). "The principle that the cause is greater than its effect". Phronesis. 21 (2):
146–156. doi:10.1163/156852876x00101 (https://doi.org/10.1163%2F156852876x00101).
JSTOR 4181986 (https://www.jstor.org/stable/4181986).
11. Holland, Paul W. (1986). "Statistics and Causal Inference". Journal of the American
Statistical Association. 81 (396): 945–960. doi:10.1080/01621459.1986.10478354 (https://do
i.org/10.1080%2F01621459.1986.10478354).
12. Pearl, Judea (2000). Causality: Models, Reasoning, and Inference (https://archive.org/detail
s/causalitymodelsr0000pear). Cambridge University Press. ISBN 978-0-521-77362-1.
13. Naveed Sattar; David Preiss (13 Jun 2017). "Reverse Causality in Cardiovascular
Epidemiological Research" (https://doi.org/10.1161%2FCIRCULATIONAHA.117.028307).
Circulation. 135 (24): 2369–2372. doi:10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.117.028307 (https://doi.o
rg/10.1161%2FCIRCULATIONAHA.117.028307). PMID 28606949 (https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.
nih.gov/28606949).
14. Richard Doll; Richard Peto; Jillian Boreham; Isabelle Sutherland (24 Jun 2004). "Mortality in
relation to smoking: 50 years' observations on male British doctors" (https://www.ncbi.nlm.ni
h.gov/pmc/articles/PMC437139). The BMJ. 328 (7455): 1239–49.
doi:10.1136/bmj.38142.554479.AE (https://doi.org/10.1136%2Fbmj.38142.554479.AE).
PMC 437139 (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC437139). PMID 15213107 (http
s://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/15213107).
15. Willingham, Emily. "Of lice and men: An itchy history" (https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/g
uest-blog/of-lice-and-men-an-itchy-history/). Scientific American Blog Network. Retrieved
2019-02-26.
16. Labossiere, M.C., Dr. LaBossiere's Philosophy Pages (http://www.opifexphoenix.com/reason
ing/fallacies/ignorecc.htm) Archived (https://web.archive.org/web/20090522103015/http://ww
w.opifexphoenix.com/reasoning/fallacies/ignorecc.htm) 2009-05-22 at the Wayback Machine
17. Quinn, Graham E.; Shin, Chai H.; Maguire, Maureen G.; Stone, Richard A. (May 1999).
"Myopia and ambient lighting at night". Nature. 399 (6732): 113–114.
Bibcode:1999Natur.399..113Q (https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1999Natur.399..113Q).
doi:10.1038/20094 (https://doi.org/10.1038%2F20094). PMID 10335839 (https://pubmed.ncb
i.nlm.nih.gov/10335839). S2CID 4419645 (https://api.semanticscholar.org/CorpusID:441964
5).
18. CNN, May 13, 1999. Night-light may lead to nearsightedness (http://www.cnn.com/HEALTH/
9905/12/children.lights/index.html)
19. Ohio State University Research News, March 9, 2000. Night lights don't lead to
nearsightedness, study suggests (http://researchnews.osu.edu/archive/nitelite.htm) Archived
(https://web.archive.org/web/20060901152949/http://researchnews.osu.edu/archive/nitelite.h
tm) 2006-09-01 at the Wayback Machine
20. Zadnik, Karla; Jones, Lisa A.; Irvin, Brett C.; Kleinstein, Robert N.; Manny, Ruth E.; Shin,
Julie A.; Mutti, Donald O. (2000). "Vision: Myopia and ambient night-time lighting". Nature.
404 (6774): 143–144. Bibcode:2000Natur.404..143Z (https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/200
0Natur.404..143Z). doi:10.1038/35004661 (https://doi.org/10.1038%2F35004661).
PMID 10724157 (https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/10724157). S2CID 4399332 (https://api.se
manticscholar.org/CorpusID:4399332).
21. Gwiazda, J.; Ong, E.; Held, R.; Thorn, F. (2000). "Vision: Myopia and ambient night-time
lighting" (https://doi.org/10.1038%2F35004663). Nature. 404 (6774): 144.
Bibcode:2000Natur.404..144G (https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2000Natur.404..144G).
doi:10.1038/35004663 (https://doi.org/10.1038%2F35004663). PMID 10724158 (https://pub
med.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/10724158).
22. Stone, Richard A.; Maguire, Maureen G.; Quinn, Graham E. (2000). "Vision: reply: Myopia
and ambient night-time lighting" (https://doi.org/10.1038%2F35004665). Nature. 404 (6774):
144. Bibcode:2000Natur.404..144S (https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2000Natur.404..144
S). doi:10.1038/35004665 (https://doi.org/10.1038%2F35004665). PMID 10724158 (https://p
ubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/10724158).
23. Carducci, Bernardo J. (2009). The Psychology of Personality: Viewpoints, Research, and
Applications (https://books.google.com/books?id=1gJPXv5wQbIC) (2nd ed.). John Wiley &
Sons. ISBN 978-1-4051-3635-8.
24. Ornish, Dean. "Cholesterol: The good, the bad, and the truth" [1] (http://www.huffingtonpost.c
om/dr-dean-ornish/cholesterol-the-good-the-_b_870655.html) (retrieved 3 June 2011)
25. Dons, E (2018). "Transport mode choice and body mass index: Cross-sectional and
longitudinal evidence from a European-wide study" (http://spiral.imperial.ac.uk/bitstream/100
44/1/61061/2/Dons2018%20preprint_BMI.pdf) (PDF). Environment International. 119 (119):
109–116. doi:10.1016/j.envint.2018.06.023 (https://doi.org/10.1016%2Fj.envint.2018.06.02
3). hdl:10044/1/61061 (https://hdl.handle.net/10044%2F1%2F61061). PMID 29957352 (http
s://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/29957352). S2CID 49607716 (https://api.semanticscholar.org/C
orpusID:49607716).
26. Novella (18 November 2009). "Evidence in Medicine: Correlation and Causation" (http://ww
w.sciencebasedmedicine.org/index.php/evidence-in-medicine-correlation-and-causation/).
Science and Medicine. Science-Based Medicine.
27. Nielsen, Michael (2012-01-23). "If correlation doesn't imply causation, then what does? |
DDI" (http://www.michaelnielsen.org/ddi/if-correlation-doesnt-imply-causation-then-what-doe
s/). Michaelnielsen.org. Retrieved 2017-10-08.
28. "Evidence in Medicine: Correlation and Causation – Science-Based Medicine" (http://www.s
ciencebasedmedicine.org/evidence-in-medicine-correlation-and-causation/).
Sciencebasedmedicine.org. 2009-11-18. Retrieved 2017-10-08.
29. Silver, Nate (2015), The Signal and the Noise: Why So Many Predictions Fail – But Some
Don't (2nd ed.), New York: Penguin Books, pp. 254–255
30. Fisher, Ronald (July 6, 1957), "Dangers Of Cigarette-Smoking", The British Medical Journal,
London: British Medical Association, 2 (5035): 43, doi:10.1136/bmj.2.5035.43 (https://doi.org/
10.1136%2Fbmj.2.5035.43), JSTOR 25383068 (https://www.jstor.org/stable/25383068),
PMC 1961750 (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1961750)
31. Fisher, Ronald (August 3, 1957), "Dangers Of Cigarette-Smoking", The British Medical
Journal, London: British Medical Association, 2 (5039): 297–298,
doi:10.1136/bmj.2.5039.297-b (https://doi.org/10.1136%2Fbmj.2.5039.297-b),
JSTOR 25383439 (https://www.jstor.org/stable/25383439), PMC 1961712 (https://www.ncbi.
nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1961712)
32. Fisher, Ronald (1958), "Cigarettes, Cancer, and Statistics" (https://www.york.ac.uk/depts/mat
hs/histstat/fisher274.pdf) (PDF), The Centennial Review of Arts & Science, East Lansing,
Michigan: Michigan State University Press, 2: 151–166, archived (https://ghostarchive.org/ar
chive/20221009/https://www.york.ac.uk/depts/maths/histstat/fisher274.pdf) (PDF) from the
original on 2022-10-09
33. Fisher, Ronald (1958), "The Nature of Probability" (https://www.york.ac.uk/depts/maths/histst
at/fisher272.pdf) (PDF), The Centennial Review of Arts & Science, East Lansing, Michigan:
Michigan State University Press, 2: 261–274, archived (https://ghostarchive.org/archive/202
21009/https://www.york.ac.uk/depts/maths/histstat/fisher272.pdf) (PDF) from the original on
2022-10-09
34. Fisher, Ronald (July 12, 1958), "Lung Cancer and Cigarettes" (https://www.york.ac.uk/depts/
maths/histstat/fisher275.pdf) (PDF), Nature, London: Nature Publishing Group, 182 (4628):
108, Bibcode:1958Natur.182..108F (https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1958Natur.182..108
F), doi:10.1038/182108a0 (https://doi.org/10.1038%2F182108a0), PMID 13566198 (https://p
ubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/13566198), archived (https://ghostarchive.org/archive/20221009/htt
ps://www.york.ac.uk/depts/maths/histstat/fisher275.pdf) (PDF) from the original on 2022-10-
09
35. Fisher, Ronald (August 30, 1958), "Cancer and Smoking" (https://www.york.ac.uk/depts/mat
hs/histstat/fisher276.pdf) (PDF), Nature, London: Nature Publishing Group, 182 (4635): 596,
Bibcode:1958Natur.182..596F (https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1958Natur.182..596F),
doi:10.1038/182596a0 (https://doi.org/10.1038%2F182596a0), PMID 13577916 (https://pub
med.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/13577916), archived (https://ghostarchive.org/archive/20221009/http
s://www.york.ac.uk/depts/maths/histstat/fisher276.pdf) (PDF) from the original on 2022-10-09

Bundled references

1. [29][30][31][32][33][34][35]

Bibliography
Beebee, Helen; Hitchcock, Christopher; Menzies, Peter (2009). The Oxford Handbook of
Causation (https://books.google.com/books?id=yWWEIvNgUQ4C). Oxford University Press.
ISBN 978-0-19-162946-4.
 Tufte, Edward R. (2006). The Cognitive Style of PowerPoint: Pitching Out Corrupts Within (ht
tp://www.edwardtufte.com/tufte/powerpoint) (2nd ed.). Cheshire, Connecticut: Graphics
Press. ISBN 978-0-9613921-5-4.

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?

title=Correlation_does_not_imply_causation&oldid=1175116796"