[Contero]

The causation could easily be backwards. Who wants to marry a depressed, unsatisfied drinker?

> Isn't it generally sound to assume causation until the position can be falsified?

Not really, no. Would you assume causation in the case of cereal consumption typically increasing 30% on the first Tuesday after a heavy rainfall? There are many similarly insane correlations that you wouldn't be so quick to assume causation about. It's biased to assume causation (based solely on statistics) when you want it to make intuitive sense.

[pbhjpbhj]

>Would you assume causation in the case of cereal consumption typically increasing 30% on the first Tuesday after a heavy rainfall? //

I can't really conjure an imaginary causation because for your imagined one [?] I'm not sure what your claim is - do you mean 30% more breakfast cereal is eaten (as opposed to purchased) on the Tuesday following heavy rain, in all areas (globally??). If it were a local statistic to the USA then one could argue that when the weather is bad people stay in at the weekends and drink more, then they miss breakfast on a Monday because they're hungover, then on Tuesday they resolve to better health and so eat breakfast cereals, they of course give up on Wednesday on the whole and the cycle repeats.

There are no real causes for imagined realities so there is no gain in asking - or answering - the question if it is indeed made up.

It's entirely plausible that there is an explanation for a similarly absurd sounding but real statistic that relies on causation.

>you wouldn't be so quick to assume //

You're right, I try not assume much but FWIW I only asked if it were sound or not, not if one were likely to do it.

You say it's "biased", I don't understand what you mean. If you always assumed a causative chain when first encountering [direct, gross, longitudinal] correlation where would the bias lie?