The only possible definition I can think of for a "false" correlation is one that does not exist in the superpopulation, but which appears in your sample due to sampling variability.

Right. Which is the problem randomization attempts to correct for, which I think of as a separate problem from causation.

No. Randomization abolishes confounding, not sampling variability

If your problem is sampling variability, the answer is to increase the power.

If your problem is confounding, the ideal answer is randomization and the second best answer is modern causality theory.

Statisticians study the first problem, causal inference people study the second problem

Open thread, Dec. 21 - Dec. 27, 2015

by MrMind 1 min read21st Dec 2015233 comments


If it's worth saying, but not worth its own post (even in Discussion), then it goes here.

Notes for future OT posters:

1. Please add the 'open_thread' tag.

2. Check if there is an active Open Thread before posting a new one. (Immediately before; refresh the list-of-threads page before posting.)

3. Open Threads should be posted in Discussion, and not Main.

4. Open Threads should start on Monday, and end on Sunday.