Please update your browser

We have detected that you are using an outdated browser that will prevent you from using
certain features. An update is required to improve your browsing experience.

Use the links below to upgrade your existing browser

Hello, visitor.

Register Now

  • Correlation or causation?

    Humans are quick to jump to conclusion without justifiable reasons to support such conclusion. This is common among journalist, scientist etc. It is easy to say action "A" cause action "B" to occur, but difficult to prove how the first action cause the second action to occur. For example, a couple sitting in a park on a sunny day, suddenly drove off, before the heavy rain started, so a lady sitting on her porch nearby concluded that the couple left because of the rain. The question is, did the couple leave the park, because of the rain? It is easy to defend that the couple left the park due to the rain, because any couple sitting in a park will leave to avoid getting unnecessarily wet, when rain is suspected. But the truth is that 'the couple actually left, because it was time to leave, since the lady had an appointment with a doctor. Therefore, the heavy rain fall correlated with the departure of the couple, but the rain did not cause the couple to leave. The counter factual is ‘if the rain had not fallen, the couple would have left anyway.

Reply to Topic

Looks like your connection to PhilanthropyU was lost, please wait while we try to reconnect.