So why did you use symbols?

So why did you use symbols? — Bartricks

I was tryin' ta make sense of your claim that correlation entail implies causation. That be all to it mate!

Well they do not aid understanding, do they. They obscure it.

Correlation does not entail causation. But it does imply it.

Just my two cents: correlation does not imply causation, but it doesn’t imply NO causation either.

My mistake then, sorry. I thought that the third post in this thread was wrtiten by the same person as the original post. You did explain a switch from "necessary" to "general" etc, and I thougth reading that, that you were correcting the original post as the author of it.

I always jump into conclusions, 75 percent of the times too early and without enough warrant... my apologies.

I surmise now that you were referring in the third post here to another script somewhere on the site that had been written by you.

So when I inferred a causal relation was responsible for the correlation between my flicking the light switch and the light coming on, that was a mistake?

Surely it implies causation, though does not entail it. On what other basis does one infer causation's presence?

Note, I am not saying that we always infer causation - we are, in our own case, directly aware of it (I am directly aware that I am causing my intentions, for example). But when it comes to the external world, we posit causal relations to explain correlations.

Well now I’m not sure if either it is you or I that has a non-standard understanding of ‘implies’.

I am using ‘implies’ to mean that something necessarily follows from something else. But I think you are using ‘entails’ to say the same.

You seem to be using ‘implies’ to mean something like ‘gives some evidence for’ which doesn’t seem strong enough.

Yes, implies is weaker than entails. If something is entailed it means it is the case.

Do you have a source for this? I would use entails and implies as synonyms.

That's a huge mistake. Perhaps there is some device - some searching engine, we might call it - that one could use to establish the truth of the matter

I ask because a cursory search appears to confirm my intuition.

Well they do not mean the same thing at all.

Imply does not mean entail.

Infer does not mean imply

Refute does not mean deny

Raise the question does not mean beg the question

Disinterested does not mean uninterested

And so on.

Now, why would you want me to provide you with a source, when you can't even perform a simple google search? You're dishonest, no? You want me to take the time to provide you with a source for something that you could discover by a simple search (or by simply taking down the dictionary), and that you are then going to check out that source and read it, yes? That's what you want me to do - to provide you with a source that you're then going to hunt down and read, yes? You're going to do that. You can't do a google search. But you want me to provide you with a source that you're then definitely going to go away and read?

Paris is the capital of France. "Can you provide a source on that, because I think Canberra is".

Do a google search or, you know, go back to school and pay attention this time around.

I’ve obviously upset you but when I google I am not bringing up the same information that you are. I’m not trying to be difficult I’m just curious where you’re getting your information. I suspect it might be wrong.

Ah, the oldest cause for argument in philosophy : failure to agree on a definition of terms. [What follows should be obvious to most but was seemingly forgotten in this case.]

Bartricks is using the everyday, unwashed-man-in-the-street definition of "implies". From Oxford Languages ,

imply : strongly suggest the truth or existence of (something not expressly stated):
"the salesmen who uses jargon to imply his superior knowledge" · "the report implies that two million jobs might be lost"

Invizzy is using the definition of "implies" from logic, also called the conditional. It is a much stronger relationship. In logic, if A implies B, then the truth of A guarantees the truth of B.

Since philosophy tends to favor logic, I think the stricter definition must win out, unless specified otherwise.

Oh that makes so much sense when you put it like that. I don’t know why I missed that version of implication in my internet search though. Sorry @Bartricks!

I have to say that those who say ‘correlation doesn’t imply causation’ are using the formal sense as far as I can tell!

Yeah, this also happens every time a non-math person starts a math thread on TPF. As much as you try to clarify the mathematical definitions for them, they keep insisting on their own folk-wisdom interpretations. So you go round and round and get nowhere.

So, what did you put in google then?
What am I implying about you? Or, to put it another way, what am I entailing about you? That makes sense, doesn't it?

So you use imply and entail as synonyms do you?
What do you say when you want to express the idea that something is suggested, but not entailed? What word?

Careful. Nailing Bartricks to see his own contradiction is like trying to nail a bit of liquid quicksilver to the wall.

Like I said, Bartricks is illogical, and has a tendency to make no sense, but in such a provokative way, that people will be drawn into arguing with him.

One of the tricks Bartricks uses is "So you are saying that (x)?" where you never said x, but maybe something similar, but sufficiently different from what Barticks claims you said so you feel compelled to clarify it for Bartricks. Then the cycle repeats. Please do NOT believe me on face value, just because I said so. But do remember later down the road that I warned you, Real Gone Cat and invizzy.

Like I said, Bartricks is illogical — god must be atheist

Er, no. Just to be clear - you're someone who thinks this -

1. God is not evil.
2. God did not create evility.
3. Humans have free will and they created evility with their moral displestitude.
4. The devil exists.

is an argument! Presumably you think shopping lists are arguments. And windows. And tuesday.

Now, shall we get back to the topic? Correlation DOES imply causation.

It does not entail it. But it does imply it.

If, when you say "correlation does not imply causation' you mean 'correlation does not entail causation' then you are a) misusing the language and b) saying something incredibly banal that isn't worth saying.

Speaking for myself, I've made it clear that there are two uses, or meanings, for "implies". One meaning is "suggests" (Those dark clouds imply rain.). The second meaning is "necessitates". The second meaning is a stronger relationship. This second meaning is also known as Logical Implication

Since we use logic to construct our arguments (or should), logical implication is always meant when using "implies" in an argument. Otherwise, modus ponens would have been abandoned millenia ago.

Now, if you so desire, you can reserve "implies" for the looser definition (suggests) and employ "entails" for the stronger definition (logical implication), but none of your listeners will know you are doing this until you tell them.

The problem for the OP has to do with another word. The OP confuses the reader by using "cause" as a noun and "cause" as a verb without distinguishing between the two. As a noun, it is true that there are necessary causes and sufficient causes. But as a verb, "cause" indicates logical implication, i.e., the antecedent is sufficient for the consequent.

So, tell me,when someone says 'imply' do you think they mean 'entail'?
Have you ever said "what are you entailing?" When someone says something that implies you are full of something?
Now, when someone says 'correlation does not imply causation'what do you think they mean?
Do tell.

And do you agree that the claim that correlation doesn't entail causation is so mindnumbingly banal that no one in their right mind would make it?

I’m pretty sure that the strong ‘entail’ version is PRECISELY what people mean when they say correlation doesn’t imply causation.

Now it’s said so often because it is true. Unarguably true. But I don’t think it’s quite ‘banal’. It’s a point about not being able to draw causation purely from statistics. You need causal models or something else to do thst.

So, tell me,when someone says 'imply' do you think they mean 'entail'? — Bartricks

I don't think I've ever used the word "entail" in my life.

Have you? [Hint : review this topic before you answer]

I'm sure there's a Logic for Dummies out there. Please find it.

A logic for dummies? What are you entailing?

No, I think most people - including you and including this cat person - mean by 'imply' 'suggests'.
Imply does not mean entail. It means suggests. Whereas if something is entailed there is no suggestion at all - it occurs or follows. And that is how you use it. Yes?

And when someone says correlation does not imply causation that is how they are using it.

And that is also how you used it, because you are continuing to thing that statistical correlations do not imply causal links, even though they do. They just don't entail them, that's all.

Correlation DOES imply causation.
Correlation does not ENTAIL causation

The latter is not worth saying. By contrast, if correlation doesn't imply causation that would certainly be worth saying as if true as then we would have to deny the presence of all causation apart from that which we directly experience in the form of our own willings.

I have found logic for dummies. It's written by @god must be atheist and it's utterly incoherent. It says if tree, teapot, wizzzzz, then Sally peanuts brain chutney. And so on. Page after page of it

"Implication" as in "material conditional" corresponds to a certain type of truth-functional relation between the antecedent and the consequent:


Accordingly "Correlation Does Not Imply Causation" simply means that one can have "correlation" (A="E1 is correlated to E2" is true ) but not "causation" (B="E1 is causing E2" or "E2 is causing E1" are false). Here some examples: https://wikimili.com/en/Correlation_does_not_imply_causation#Examples_of_illogically_inferring_causation_from_correlation

What are you entailing?

Are you entailing that invizzy was wrong or that I was wrong? Which one - which one are you entailing?