Bob Schiller wrote:
Do you want to try that again using English this time? Thanks.
Sure. While correlation does not necessarily mean causation, it surely does not rule it out. Lack of correlation would rule out causation.
So when someone makes an argument based on the statement that correlation does not mean causation, they are making only 1/2 an argument. There may very well be causation -- it is up to them to show there is none.
It reminds me of the lame statement that the absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. Maybe -- but in all likelihood it does if you can provide no evidence.