Reply to comment
re: "fallacy of correlation implies causation"
August 21, 2007 by Brendan (not verified), 2 years 13 weeks ago
Comment id: 24643
Reply
About us
Science Blog was started in August 2002. It lives, breathes and eats press releases from research organizations around the globe. Most of what you read here are press releases from the outfits named in the stories themselves. Got a news story you think belongs here? Let's talk. The other half of the equation is blog posts from readers like you. So if you have an interest in science, please register and join others like you in an ongoing, vibrant dialog about what makes the world tick. Meantime, please take a minute to read our Privacy Policy and Site Disclaimer.Recommended
Andrew Sullivan Dan Sullivan Doug Arellanes Emmanuelle Richard Faith Sullivan Fred Bortz Heather Havrilesky Henry Copeland Kate Sullivan Ken Layne lagreenbean.com LAist.com Maggie Sullivan Matt Welch NewYorkology Opinion L.A. Ron Kaye Slashdot Steve Elzer & Family TheNewsroom.org Thor Garcia Tony Pierce Wonkette OlderThanks CNET for naming Science Blog one of your Blog 100!
Fred goes to some effort (more than most) to make it clear that it's too soon to tell, and that climate is a complex system, so I don't think there's danger in this post being seen as an island of correlation pointing to causation.
Correct me if I'm wrong (and I'm sure Fred will) but many respected models of the effects of climate change predict stronger hurricanes (and more extreme weather in general). So, that there is a correlation here that points to causation I think can be entertained. If there were no models that predicted this, if this were just some correlation pulled form the air, then I think a warning would be warranted.
In this case I would caution against not correlating these results with causation. A logical fallacy only means "conclusion is not true in one or more cases", but does not rule out the cases in which "conclusion = true". In the case of climate change (or any complex system) it's necessary to predict and react based on incomplete understanding of the future. I differ with Fred on what course of action is available to us, but that's a different argument.