No subject

   Quoted:

     Dean, please...

     Why do you keep repeating the phrase "correlation does not imply
     causation" if you're just going to put a "but" after it? Either
     stand up and defend the data as meaningful, or say something pithy
     like, "Food for thought," and drop it. The buttmonkeys are killing
     me.

   The reason is that correlation is not causation. It's an iron rule of
   science and empiricism.

   So if you spot a correlation you may have something interesting. You
   can't state that you've found anything certain but you might reason
   your way into saying you've got something interesting. Or at least
   something puzzling that can't be easily answered.

   But correlation does not equal causation. If you don't respect that as
   a first rule then you're just mentally masturbating.

   We can correlate George W. Bush's presence in the White House with the
   state of Michigan's nation-high unemployment rate of 7.5%. Which is
   currently making my life miserable. So is he responsible for that? Our
   incumbent Governor [1]Jennifer Granholm says he is. Is she right?

   By the way, I'm probably going to vote to re-elect her today. But
   that's not the question.

References

   1. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jennifer_Granholm