One of the comments on my article asked about correlation and causation.
Economists are always concerned not to confuse correlation and causation.
FORBES: A Use For The Commerce Clause: Increasing US Labour Mobility Through Occupational Licensing
From the use of surrogate endpoints (based on biological plausibility and the results of preclinical studies) to the distinction between correlation and causation, confounding (whether the effect size is too large to be explained away by confounding), and the hypothesis-generating nature of the inferential process.
The answer is, of course, no and the reason has to do with the difference between causation and correlation.
To repeat, correlation is not causation, and a lot more work would need to be done to prove the point.
Indeed, correlation is frequently not causation, and while growing economies by definition need more money, to pump money into an economy without the growth first is to put the proverbial cart before the horse.
But correlation is not causation, so Mr Eppig and his colleagues tried to eliminate other possible explanations.
Here Bergh and Henrekson are talking about correlation, but what about causation?
Correlation, of course, does not equal causation - and, so far at least, there is no reason to suggest that American football causes investors to feel suddenly more bullish in a given year.
Michael Morgan, an experimental psychologist at Sussex University, admits that there are holes in the experimental record that need to be filled before the link between the drug and nasty long-term effects moves from correlation to causation.
ECONOMIST: A scientific row has broken out over the effects of Ecstasy
应用推荐