causation in a sentence
Example sentences for causation
The parties looked at all the information related to causation.
Only that kind of experiment, he says, can suggest anything definitive about causation.
What is more, the direction of causation is not always clear.
It's rare in science and science writing to make definitive statements, particularly about causation.
Of course, as anyone with any exposure to statistics knows, correlation is not causation.
In practice, however, it is difficult to pinpoint the right direction of causation.
Causation is nearly as nettlesome a problem as contingency.
The researchers have confused correlation with causation.
Correlation and causation are not necessarily the same.
It's a confusion in categories that betrays a breakdown in logic which has confused issues of causation.
Even if the correlation were not spurious, it would be difficult to know which way causation ran.
The article implies there is causation but in truth this might be coincidence.
As always, though, correlation doesn't necessarily mean causation.
As a rule, whenever causation becomes murky, look earlier in the process or event.
The correlations seem robust, as does the direction of causation.
Too often, consequence is left to imply causation in medical studies.
It's a good old correlation does not equal causation.
Let me introduce you to a basic principle: correlation does not equal causation.
As every science student is taught from the beginning, correlation is not causation.
As others have pointed out coloration does not equal causation.
There's also a problem of correlation vs causation with his argument.
However readers, please don't mistake causation for correlation.
Of course this study finding shows correlation not causation.
In every pandemic, the chain of causation is intricate.
Humans are capable of only making observations, so true causation is unknowable.
In epidemiological mathematics correlation does not mean causation.
But a growing body of evidence suggests that any advantages from marriage are more a result of selection than causation.
It's typically deployed by those who cannot get causation right in their metaphors, much less their arguments.
Even if your claim is true, correlation is not causation.
Even under no-fault medical malpractice provisions, causation would have to be determined.
Establishing a statistical link between low wages and corruption does not show which way causation flows.
But one has to wonder whether that's the proper causation.
ID proves scientifically and mathematically that there is an intelligent causation to life and evolution.
It certainly correlates with the emergence of the web, though whether the correlation reflects causation is unproven.
Causation and purpose are not rational subjects, neither is who what when where or why.
Teasing out the causation takes more effort than making a cute map.
Causation v correlation means that this graph is, essentially, meaningless.
But such links do not tell you anything about causation.
We need to be careful and not to equate correlation with causation.
As many comments above pointed out there is problem with causation here.
As with total running yards, the direction of causation can go both ways.
He violates the basic rule of research that correlation is not the same thing as causation.
So the advances in research are going in two directions, as far as causation.
But remember, as always, correlation is not necessarily causation.
But intervening in a process can provide evidence of causation.
It's important to note that the results here show correlation and don't establish causation.
Another poor medical article confusing correlation with causation.
Only gradually does counterevidence emerge, showing that the initial correlation stemmed not from causation but coincidence.
All it has is a claim that false consensus about correlation is adequate to show causation.
It is a correlation does not equal causation problem.
As usual, the press neglects to mention the possibility of reverse causation.
Second, don't confuse correlation in time with causation.
If it's genuinely federalist, he deserves some credit for reasoning out a subtle but credible causation.
They're stating that though earnings and education correlated, there is no causation.
The public has been heavily propagandized along one definite theory of causation by those convinced by one level of information.
Untangling correlation and causation is difficult, and many of the causes overlap.
They do not specify any causation or make any claims about the direction of causality.
Thus in the chain of interdependent causation all phenomenal existence is constantly changing.
No one is ruling out cigarette smoking as a prime suspect in the causation of lung cancer.
Any attempt to find causation or fault for what happened last week is fraught.
Of course many of the factors considered will show interesting correlations in a sample, but correlation does not equal causation.
And in any case, correlation is not a demonstration of causation.
But as you correctly point out, causation itself travels at the speed of light.
As per the question of correlation vs causation, causation is extremely difficult to prove.
These predictions come with a strong caveat: correlation does not equal causation.
And if you reject this, then you also reject all causation found by inference.
Yet the evidence that it is exposure in utero to testosterone that causes all these things relies on a shaky chain of causation.
It found correlation, not causation-speculators were clinging on for the ride, not making the beast buck.
Kind of a small sample size, even ignoring the conflation of correlation with causation.
Now, with our report, there are two important words to distinguish between: correlation and causation.
Correlation is not causation, of course, but the economy has tended to do the best when taxes on unearned income were high.
Now new research correlation does not equal causation.
It's always dangerous to try to infer causation from correlation.
It's important to remember that correlation does not imply causation.
There is no data showing a correlation, never mind causation, between spring temperatures and local extirpation.
Correlation, after all, does not necessarily imply causation.
And of course it is true: correlation says nothing, necessarily, about causation.
Apparent correlation is not proof of causation, of course, but you do have to wonder.
But the two can be separated, and the causation goes in both directions.
But correlation is not causation, and diagnosis is definitively not cause.
Famous quotes containing the word causation
The very hope of experimental philosophy, its expectation of constructing the sciences into a true philosophy of nature,... more