In what follows, I will focus on Leibniz's positive account of causation.
David Hume (1740) famously offers an account of belief that treats beliefs principally as occurrences (see the section on Causation: The Positive Phase in Hume), in which he is partly followed by Braithwaite (1932 1933).
If not, how many and is the number significant enough to establish positive correlation and hence, causation?
No, because it is based exclusively on negative evidence from a process-of-elimination screen, rather than on positive evidence of mechanistic causation.
These positive correlations do not confirm causation, but they do suggest that it is possible that UNG development can alleviate one or more limiting factors on autotrophic production within these streams.
Harking back to Austin Bradford Hill and his criteria for assessing causation (Hill 1965), positive exposure response analyses are important in supporting the assessment of causality.
Our study was a cross-sectional analysis, so we cannot determine the causation, but found a positive association between participation and GSES anyway.
First, the study was cross-sectional and the positive associations found do not allow for inferring causation.
Hence, a direct connection between Lrp and aroP, as inferred by C3NET, is the classic case of a false positive where the algorithm failes to discriminate between causation and association, because apparently aroP is indirectly regulated by Lrp.
