X causes Y if surgical (or randomized controlled) manipulations in X are correlated with changes in Y
X causes Y if it doesn't obviously not cause Y.
This seems to conveniently overlook the decades of quantitative social science built on "I controlled for a couple things, and p is less than .05, so X causes Y."
But I'm not clear on the community context here. Is this just good-natured ribbing?
X causes Y if it doesn't obviously not cause Y.
This seems to conveniently overlook the decades of quantitative social science built on "I controlled for a couple things, and p is less than .05, so X causes Y."
But I'm not clear on the community context here. Is this just good-natured ribbing?