[alien_at_work]

>Today, if there's correlation, unless it's clearly spurious/etc, and unless somebody has a better idea, I tell the product/eng team to push hard on it and don't even mention correlation vs causation.

Because it's actually a stupid thing to say. Correlation does not conclusively prove causation would be better. It certainly gives a sensible place to look.

[systoll]

'Correlation does not imply causation' only means that causation is not a logical consequence of correlation.

It's no broader a statement than the one you prefer.

[alien_at_work]

Except that's not right. It may be. In fact persuing correlations is how we do science. At some point we gain enough confidence in the correlations that we call it causation.