Perhaps you mean something different from how this comes across. Surely you are not implying that say, for example, there the correlation (statistically speaking) is the most powerful stat? It sounds like you are making a huge leap from what Charles said, that there is no "proof" in science, to saying that science does not try to look for causality. I think double blinded controlled studies are trying to do a pretty damned rigorous job of looking for causality. Perhaps you are referring to the whole statisical probability aspect of natural laws in physics? If so, I think we are talking about things on different levels.
I have a decent background in applied stats, and work in medical research, so I hope that I, and others involved in research haven't just been frittering away our time looking for mere correlations.
I point this out because your statement could be a dangerous one to make to a public who already has a poor understanding of science, and who like
to either accept correlations as equaling causation, or who equally erroneously, dismiss important rigorous scientific findings by saying, "Oh, you can use stats to prove anything, it's meaningless."
-Gingerken <[address removed]>
Excellent point, Charles. Science gave up on ascertaining causality
quite a while ago. At most, contemporary research demonstrates a
statistical correlation between two phenomena.