Talk:correlation does not imply causation

How is correlation does not equal causation a proverb? It seems like a concrete statement to me. It means one event happening during the other does not mean it caused the other or vice versa. For example, a man drinking soda who gets diabetes might have it for reasons other than drinking the soda, or a person who smokes tobacco getting lung cancer does not automatically mean that the tobacco was the cause of the lung cancer, or if a person masturbates and goes blind it does not prove masturbation causes blindness, etc. I think of proverb as referring to wise sounding phrases like the ones they have in China and other parts of Asia that are very abstract and don't mean anything in particular. --PaulBustion88 (talk) 20:32, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
 * By the definition of proverb.
 * A fact is not "something true"; it is more "something actual". General logical truths are not actual.
 * Your definition of proverb is not a common one. See.
 * That an instance of a generalization is concrete does not make the generalization concrete.
 * I rest your case. DCDuring TALK 20:43, 25 April 2015 (UTC)


 * I don't see this as a proverb either. Chambers: "a short familiar saying expressing a supposed truth or moral lesson; a byword". A statistical or mathematical formulation isn't much like that. Equinox ◑ 22:48, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Does familiar mean that it can't be domain-limited, in which realm it is indeed 'familiar'? This seems like a 'short' 'saying expressing a supposed truth' to me. It's just a modern proverb, not a traditional one. Were it considered false it would indeed not be a proverb, but just a phrase, like post hoc ergo propter hoc. DCDuring TALK 03:54, 26 April 2015 (UTC)


 * It's not the domain limitation but the fact that it's a formal "axiom" (correct word?) of a system: it is 100% true; whereas proverbs seem to be always somewhat subjective, and usually a bit vague and metaphorical. I suspect Chambers' "familiar" doesn't mean "known (within a domain)" but "informal", like "a familiar nickname". Equinox ◑ 12:47, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I don't think this is an axiom in any system.
 * Some definitions of proverb restrict them to 'folk' wisdom. That would seem to mean that we can't have any of recent identifiable coinage, which I suspect would exclude some we include. Category:English proverbs. DCDuring TALK 18:04, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Well, it's good of you to put them up for deletion. I hope this one dies. Equinox ◑ 08:30, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

RFD
Delete IMO: very literal, and lacks the colour/character/quirkiness of a true proverb. Just a scientific observation. Equinox ◑ 00:29, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom and per Equinox. bd2412 T 01:16, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
 * So a proverb has to have a certain je ne sais quoi ("color, character, quirkiness"). And a truism from a specific community can't be a proverb. Is it a set phrase? DCDuring TALK 13:14, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Basically fuck off. Equinox ◑ 09:22, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
 * This seems to be a set phrase and is used, in restricted contexts, as advice, invoking a general principle in the manner of many proverbs that are truths or, more pejoratively, truisms. It is intended to restart thinking giving it a function more or less opposite to the thought-stopping function or everything happens for a reason. DCDuring TALK 14:35, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

Deleted. bd2412 T 19:55, 1 September 2015 (UTC)