You have not been answering my questions regarding your claim that "correlashun" [sic] can never imply causation.
Let's try again. If 100 people are given experimental eye-drops, and all 100 go blind in 10 minutes, with nothing else unusual happening, does the "correlshun" [sic] imply anything about the eye drops.
I have asked you several times to show the VALUE of the correlation for the examples you offer and how those values were calculated. You never do. The reason is your examples do not lend themselves to calculation of a correlation value. You do not understand correlation in the context of statistical analysis.
" have asked you several times to show the VALUE of the correlation for the examples you offer and how those values were calculated"
You are not making sense. The correlation in a specific example is a specific number. In only one question--the baseball question--did you ask a specific question. And in that case I gave you the specific number--ONE. It is obvious that the answer is ONE, but if you want I can plug into the formula. However, I have REPEATEDLY asked you specific questions and you have not answered. Most bizarre, is that as part of not answering MY question, you are claiming I am doing what you are doing.
"reason is your examples do not lend themselves to calculation of a correlation value."
This is just unintelligible. What are you talking about. When I say that smoking is correlated with lung cancer, it is a true fact. I can calculate the actual number if given the actual data, but what is your point? There is no particular reason in discussing causality to give the exact number.
Now again, answer my question. Here is yet again. Consider the data points (s= 7, t= 8) and (s= -3, t= 11) What is the correlation between s and t? Just give a number. Anyone think Statistics Rodent, whose knowledge of statistics is limited to reciting lame incorrect catch-phrases like "correlation can never imply causation" can actually show that he knows how to calculate a trivial correlation.