Talk:Correlation implies causation/Page title

This page is for discussing the page title for Correlation implies causation. Please sign your comments with ~.

Proposed titles
Generic
 * Cum hoc ergo propter hoc like Post hoc ergo propter hoc
 * Correlation and Causation

Fallacy
 * Correlation fallacy
 * Correlation and causation fallacy
 * Correlation implies causation fallacy or Correlation implies causation (fallacy)
 * False cause fallacy or False cause (fallacy)
 * Correlation is causation (fallacy)
 * Correlation proves causation fallacy

"Not"
 * Correlation is not causation
 * Correlation does not imply causation
 * Correlation does not prove causation

Please vote on these titles below.

Requested move

 * This is an old entry. Please do not vote on it.


 * Support. No disambiguation necessary. David Kernow 11:43, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Support, does not need parantheses if the plain title is a redirect to it. J I P | Talk 17:37, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Support; brackets are pointless in this case. smurrayinch e ster(User), (Talk) 17:42, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Done based on consensus, have fun! -- Kim van der Linde at venus 18:57, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

2002
This article needs to be renamed; unqualified falsehoods just don't make for good titles. --Ryguasu 12:47 Nov 25, 2002 (UTC)

I think once it was a sub-page of fallacy? It would almost make sense as that (I think there is a redirect from Fallacy/Correlation....? It could stand alone as "Correlation and Causation" if rewritten. But someone should look at the fallacy collection first. Ctwardy 19:33 Nov 25, 2002 (UTC)

2005
Why isn't this named "cum hoc ergo propter hoc"? Post hoc ergo propter hoc is called by its analogous name. Anyway, nobody is ever going to search for an article called "Correlation implies causation" so why not use a more official term? I also think that the article should talk about similarities and differences between post hoc and cum hoc. Just my two cents, I don't know much about this topic. --Leapfrog314 03:46, 8 September 2005 (UTC)


 * I am completely opposed to using Latin names here. I think it far more likely someone will look for, and spell correctly, an English name than a Latin name.  That said, I think this should be rolled into the logical fallacy article, as opposed to creating a new article for each fallacy. StuRat 02:19, 17 September 2005 (UTC)

2006
I found this article by searching google for "correlation is not causality" and it was exactly what I was looking for, so there goes your "nobody" arguement - Anonymous on Tue, 10 Jan 2006 18:54:15 -0800

Why is this article at Correlation implies causation (logical fallacy)? Why can't it simply be at Correlation implies causation? smurrayinchester(Talk) ]] 08:09, 29 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Anonymous == nobody. Anyways, why not just make it redirect?

Isn't "Correlation implies causation fallacy" a better name of the article? Narssarssuaq 17:18, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Or what about "Correlation implies causation (fallacy)"Kmarinas86 17:24, 20 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Or we could go with "Correlation implies, fallaciously, causation". Aaadddaaammm 06:47, 2 October 2006 (UTC)


 * How about "False cause (fallacy)" in like kind with these guys. I would think "Correlation fallacy" would work just fine too. Or maybe "Correlation is causation (fallacy)". On second thought, maybe "Correlation is causation (fallacy)" would be best. -- Chris53516 16:51, 2 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Surely Correlation does not imply causation is a better title, that phrase is widly known and has the benefit of being true to boot. It would require some rewriting, but it is the more important concept. --Salix alba (talk) 20:09, 18 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Not true, Correlation does imply causation. What correlation doesn't do is prove causation. I know that the phrase 'correlation does not imply causation' is the most widely used, but it is incorrect. I propose that we move the page to Correlation does not prove causation or Correlation proves causation fallacy and mention the more widely used phrase as an alternative name for the fallacy in the first paragraph. Grumpyyoungman01 00:43, 28 October 2006 (UTC)


 * I agree with Salix alba and think Correlation does not imply causation is the best choice. In regards to Grumpyyoungman01's statement that causation is implied by correlation, I think it would be best to really evaluate that thought before placing it into the article.  Right now, I am having a very difficult time agreeing with that, and since most people characterize the idea as "correlation does not imply causation" then we would definitely need a good number of high quality references to support describing the idea otherwise. - Dozenist  talk  10:24, 28 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Correlation only implies causation because we are feeble-minded. In truth, it should never imply causation because of the myriad of ways of looking at the problem, as discussed on the page. For example, one "cause" could actually be an effect. Since correlation is the examination of two events at the same time, the linear time relationship of causation is missing. That is, since one of the events does not precede the other, the definition of "cause" is not met for either event. Therefore, an article with such a title would be misleading and entirely false. I'm in favor of any article title that is NOT a lie, or is plainly displayed as a fallacy (e.g., "Correlation is causation (fallacy)"). -- Chris53516 14:33, 30 October 2006 (UTC)


 * When talking about correlations two events can occur at roughly the same time, but not at the exact same time so that the possibility/plausibility of cause is met. Implication has nothing to do with objective Truth, when you are working with implication, you are speaking about the reaction or ideas from beings who are, as you put it 'feeble-minded'. Grumpyyoungman01 22:46, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

2015
If correlation didn't imply causation, movie directors and editors would be out of work. The fact that it doesn't prove causation becomes clear when you see behind the scenes footage of the shoot. Just sayin'... ô ¿  ô  01:34, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

Survey and discussion
This vote is closed.


 * Support, Now that we have worked out the meaning of the word imply this move should provide fewer objections. In either case "does not imply" is the phrase that is commonly used, not "implies". The word "fallacy" in brackets is superfluous and should largely be reserved for disambiguation. Grumpyyoungman01 09:59, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Support. Because it's not a lie, unlike the current title. I would, however, also support "Correlation is not causation," especially since it has more hits on Google. – Chris53516 (Talk) 14:54, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Support per nom. VirogIt's notmy fault! 15:32, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Support per nom (what's the point of having a title pointing to something incorrect ?) Schutz 13:37, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Based on the vote an length of availability of the vote, I have moved the page. – Chris53516 (Talk) 15:15, 27 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Oppose, and rather much so (I'm too late, but still). The correct page title would in my opinion be "Correlation implies causation fallacy", as this page actually was named before a move some time ago. This follows the pattern of most of the other fallacy articles. Narssarssuaq 16:51, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Title Needs To Be Changed
As others have remarked, the current title is just plain wrong. How about Correlation versus Causation Correlation & Causation Correlation is not Causation Distinction between correlation and causation Conceptual difference between correlation and causation</li>

We currently have an extremely poor choice of title. Correlation is a commutative relationship. Just like the equal sign ( = ) in math. A correlates with B, and B correlates with A. However, causal relationships (in the context here) are unidirectional. Matches can cause fires, but fires don't cause matches. True, there is a correlation between matches and fires. However, further investigation and analysis is needed before one can declare that one element causes another. Interactions between other variables in the observed "world" further cast the suggestion of causation. IMHO the most relevant and important use of an article on the subject of correlation and causation would be to overcome one of the human mind's major flaws, the tendency to bestow a causal relationship far too quickly with too little evidence, to draw implications from statistically insignificant data. See Bayesian Theorem. This human frailty explains, at least in part, a broad range of bizarre societal behavior including discrimination, fads, speculative bubbles (recommended reading Extraordinary Popular Delusions and the Madness of Crowds), and the Salem witch trials. Let's give those who seek knowledge a leg up here by improving this page, and not saddle them with the ball and chain of ignorance. --Knowsetfree 04:56, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm OK with the title, even though it is weird
It is strange that a title is a patently false statement. But it is even stranger that so many people are confused about this subject. For me, the title is helpful because it informed me that the purpose of the article was to get people to stop using correlational arguments to support a claim of causality. This is less an encyclopedic article than it is an editorial. An exception to Wikipedia policy should be permitted in this case.Guy vandegrift (talk) 12:54, 18 December 2023 (UTC)