Well, holy shit! I didn't know Allen Downey (no idea who this person is) said this! Now I'm a believer! (That was sarcasm. I just know someone is going to not get it, so I've made that clear.)

In conclusion, correlation is a valuable type of scientific evidence in fields such as medicine, psychology, and sociology. But first correlations must be confirmed as real, and then every possible causative relationship must be systematically explored. In the end correlation can be used as powerful evidence for a cause-and-effect relationship between a treatment and benefit, a risk factor and a disease, or a social or economic factor and various outcomes. But it is also one of the most abused types of evidence, because it is easy and even tempting to come to premature conclusions based upon the preliminary appearance of a correlation.

I'm not sure what you think you're proving by linking this. I just pointed out that showing correlation can be done by anyone, over pretty much anything. Just because you believe to be correct doesn't mean that your stance has any more credibility than the person who is countering your argument.

Are you really not understanding this?

It's like you stumbled over correlation vs causation conversations and saw how easy it would be to just point out correlations between things and claim causation, just because.

But you seem to not understand that you don't have exclusive use of this argument.

Quite frankly, after looking through some of your posts, I'm going to have to throw down my Poe's Law playing card.