No they don’t. This is what people who don’t deeply understand statistics but want to sound smart say all the time. Correlation implies that you can consider causation, but doesn’t prove it. But people use that phrase as if correlation disproves causation. That’s plain stupid https://twitter.com/leviabx/status/1244970629926998016

Anybody immediately responds to a correlation with “but correlation does not imply causation” probably doesn’t know what they’re talking about. Don’t have much to say, throw around smart sounding cocktail phrase. Causal inference is indeed very complex. But correlation is a step!

Yes, exactly. I’ve seen a few exceptions but that phrase has almost always meant that the person doesn’t know what they’re talking about. https://twitter.com/ericrweinstein/status/777401909376225282

By the way, the original tweeter also says he was joking! I'm keeping this thread up because that phrase is indeed so common. https://twitter.com/LeviABx/status/1246508326172704769

For weeks, I've been hearing "but correlation does not imply causation" re:masks despite that in this case, yes, yes, it does: we have coverage and a control (Japan, screwing up everything but masks and it's not Lombardy or NYC); analytic reasons (virus); priors (good studies).