Causal inference in the context of "Positive political theory"

A natural experiment is a study in which individuals (or clusters of individuals) are exposed to the experimental and control conditions that are determined by nature or by other factors outside the control of the investigators. The process governing the exposures arguably resembles random assignment. Thus, natural experiments are observational studies and are not controlled in the traditional sense of a randomized experiment (an intervention study). Natural experiments are most useful when there has been a clearly defined exposure involving a well defined subpopulation (and the absence of exposure in a similar subpopulation) such that changes in outcomes may be plausibly attributed to the exposure. In this sense, the difference between a natural experiment and a non-experimental observational study is that the former includes a comparison of conditions that pave the way for causal inference, but the latter does not.

Natural experiments are employed as study designs when controlled experimentation is extremely difficult to implement or unethical, such as in several research areas addressed by epidemiology (like evaluating the health impact of varying degrees of exposure to ionizing radiation in people living near Hiroshima at the time of the atomic blast) and economics (like estimating the economic return on amount of schooling in US adults).

The phrase "correlation does not imply causation" refers to the inability to legitimately deduce a cause-and-effect relationship between two events or variables solely on the basis of an observed association or correlation between them. The idea that "correlation implies causation" is an example of a questionable-cause logical fallacy, in which two events occurring together are taken to have established a cause-and-effect relationship. This fallacy is also known by the Latin phrase cum hoc ergo propter hoc ("with this, therefore because of this"). This differs from the fallacy known as post hoc ergo propter hoc ("after this, therefore because of this"), in which an event following another is seen as a necessary consequence of the former event, and from conflation, the errant merging of two events, ideas, databases, etc., into one.

As with any logical fallacy, identifying that the reasoning behind an argument is flawed does not necessarily imply that the resulting conclusion is false. Statistical methods have been proposed that use correlation as the basis for hypothesis tests for causality, including the Granger causality test and convergent cross mapping. The Bradford Hill criteria, also known as Hill's criteria for causation, are a group of nine principles that can be useful in considering the epidemiologic evidence of a causal relationship. Ultimately, assumptions are always required to draw causal conclusions, and modern causal inference frameworks focus on interrogating the strength of these assumptions.

In causal inference, a confounder is a variable that affects both the dependent variable and the independent variable, creating a spurious relationship.

Confounding is a causal concept rather than a purely statistical one, and therefore cannot be fully described by correlations or associations alone. The presence of confounders helps explain why correlation does not imply causation, and why careful study design and analytical methods (such as randomization, statistical adjustment, or causal diagrams) are required to distinguish causal effects from spurious associations.