Want this question answered?
Event 1 makes Event 2 happen.
Yes, it is possible for two dependent events to have the same probability of occurring. The probability of an event is dependent on the outcomes of other events, and it is influenced by the relationship between these events. So, it is conceivable for two dependent events to have equal probabilities.
First, a correlation is an indicator of the linear relationship between two events or manifestations. As such, it does not indicate that A causes B or B causes A, but rather that A and B coexists together. A correlation will vary between -1 and +1. A correlation of 0 will mean that there is no relationship between A and B. The closer the correlation is to the extreme, the stronger the relationship is. It is important to note that the sign only indicates whether the relationship is positive or negative. More specific to this question, a positive correlation will mean that as A increases, so does B. For example, perfectionism has been found to be positively correlated to depression. In other words, as the person presents more severe form of perfectionism, he or she will also show more symptoms of depression. This relationship could be represented in a graph as a diagonal line starting low and gradually moving higher as it moves towards the right.
The key word that I use is causality. However, you cannot use probability to determine causality. Even if two events are highly correlated, probability theory cannot tell whether event A is caused by event B, or event B is caused by event A, or that both are caused by some third event that is not even part of the study.
Independent events.
A Teacher drops A box of chalk, and her chalkboard Crack a few minuets later.
You did not list any events.
One example of events that are correlated but do not have a causal relationship is the rise in ice cream sales and drownings. While both events may peak during summer months, there is no direct link between them causing one another. Another example is the correlation between the amount of TVs sold and the number of births in a population, which are linked to economic and societal factors rather than a direct causal relationship.
Good question! Correlation implies that two events occur together, but it does not necessarily mean that one causes the other. In this case, events listed after the passage might be correlated but not causally related if there is a pattern in their occurrence but no direct causal link between them.
Event 1 makes Event 2 happen.
A causal mechanism refers to the process or chain of events that explains why a particular event or outcome occurs. It highlights the relationship between the cause and the effect, showing how one leads to the other. Understanding the causal mechanisms behind a phenomenon helps to explain why certain patterns or behaviors occur.
Sam had not eaten breakfast; he was hungry.
A diagnosis is made by visual examination and may be confirmed by a report of the causal events
In a story, causal events typically follow a logical progression where each event is directly influenced by the preceding one. This sequence helps to drive the plot forward and create a coherent narrative. The causal events in a story establish cause-and-effect relationships that lead to the development of characters and the resolution of conflicts.
The standard answer is that a positive statistical correlation, no matter how strong, never proves anything about the causal relationship. Technically, correlations are symmetric and so the evidence is identical whether you imagine that A causes B or B causes A. Another problem is that you could have an omitted third factor C which explains both A and B. A correlation between A and B never rules out the possibility of C influencing them both. What you can sometimes say more realistically is that a strong correlation might make a proposed causal explanation more plausible. It might be evidence as part of an argument, but it's not sufficient by itself. Other parts of the argument could be exclusion of other factors (through experiments or statistical controls) and logical precedence. For example, if you had evidence that women are smarter than men, it doesn't seem likely that smartness causes gender. Similarly, events from the future don't influence events of the past; thus establishing the time sequence might also help to build a causal explanation. In short, there are few if any obvious causal relationships based on correlation alone if you want to use rigorous methods. Experiments and replication of results under diverse circumstances are the best way to show a causal relationship.
Rescorla
A causal inference may not be supported by known facts, but can often be correctly assumed.Right after I saw lightning outside, our electricity went out. (causal: lightning caused the outage)While it was raining very hard, I noticed the window was leaking water. (causal; rainwater found a break around the window)After mom's car hit the pothole, the tire blew. (causal: the sharp edge of the pothole caused the tire to blow)