I’m Surprised by the Confident Use of Words Like Certainty and Causality

Today I came across a post on LinkedIn by a digital specialist. He confidently claimed that with an A/B test, we can determine not just correlation, but true causality. He used words like “certainty” as if statistics were part of Newtonian physics — clear, absolute, unquestionable. I’m surprised by that level of confidence. I don’t have it.

We See Causes Where There Are None

Our brain craves order. When something happens after something else, we instinctively think: “the first thing caused the second.” Got a headache? Must’ve been the coffee. We’re built to look for causes — even when they’re not there.

From an evolutionary perspective, this makes perfect sense. If you hear a rustle in the bushes, it’s safer to assume there’s a tiger and run, even if it’s just the wind. Evolution has taught us it’s better to be wrong than dead. Maybe that’s why we tend to see patterns in randomness, connections in the unconnected.

In the Middle Ages, people believed comets brought disaster. Halley’s Comet appeared in 1066 — followed by the Battle of Hastings. Case closed.

For centuries, people also believed that storms, plagues, and crop failures were caused by witchcraft. If lightning struck, a cow died, or a child was born with a deformity, society demanded a culprit. Often it was women — unmarried, childless, or simply too independent. They were accused, tortured, and burned. Over 50,000 people, mostly women, were executed for a cause that never existed.

The philosopher David Hume pointed this out long ago: we never see causality. We only get used to the fact that B follows A. But does A actually cause B? That’s just our assumption. And statistics? It shows us that two things may correlate or have some sort of relationship — but not which one causes the other. Even experiments don’t bring certainty — only higher probability.

Causality is often just a hypothesis. A model. A tool — not the truth.