“Correlation does not imply causation” is a fundamental motto of science. Every single scientist is familiar with that observing a correlation involving two items doesn’t necessarily suggest that just one of them will cause the other.
But in accordance to a provocative new paper, several researchers in psychology are drawing the incorrect classes from this motto. The paper is called The Taboo Against Explicit Causal Inference in Nonexperimental Psychology and it comes from Michael P. Grosz et al.
The post would make a large amount of details, but to me the most important insight of the piece was this: Several scientific tests in psychology are implicitly about causality, without the need of overtly indicating as significantly.
Look at, for example, this hugely cited 2011 study which showed that little ones with superior self-control have superior health and fitness and social outcomes yrs later as adults.
This 2011 paper never claimed to have shown causality. It was, immediately after all, an observational, correlational style, and correlation is not causation. But Grosz et al. say that the study only would make feeling in the context of an implicit perception that self-control does (or in all probability does) causally influence outcomes.
The title of the 2011 paper implies that it was a study about predicting the outcomes. Prediction can be an essential purpose, but Grosz et al. point out that if the study had truly been about prediction, it would make feeling to think about a entire array of probable predictors. A purely predictive study would not concentrate on a single variable. The paper also in all probability would not be so hugely cited, if audience truly considered it stated almost nothing about causality.
Grosz et al. examine a few other influential “observational” psychology papers and in all circumstances, they come across proof of unspoken causal promises and assumptions, swept less than a correlational rug.
As they set it, “Comparable to when intercourse or drugs are manufactured taboo, producing express causal inference taboo does not quit people today from carrying out it they just do it in a less transparent, regulated, innovative and knowledgeable way.”
The authors go on to argue that there is certainly truly almost nothing incorrect with speaking about causality in the context of observational analysis — but the causal assumptions and promises want to be manufactured express, so that they can be critically evaluated.
To be crystal clear, the authors are not indicating that correlation implies causation. They argue that it is in some cases probable to draw inferences about causation from correlational proof, if we have sufficient proof to rule out non-causal different explanations. This type of inference is “pretty difficult. However, this is not a good rationale to render express causal inference taboo.”