> Correlation does not imply causation but it does imply having something to do with the other
Correlation does not imply having something to do with another.
For example, in the first decade of the 21st century, spending on space exploration had a 99.8% correlation with a specific subset of suicides (hanging?).
"Correlation does not imply having something to do with another."
By its very definition, "correlation" means exactly "a mutual relation": https://www.dictionary.com/browse/correlation
The example you're giving is called coincidence not correlation. There are times where words' etymologies loose their connection with their current meaning, but that is not the case here, where we have "con" meaning "together" + "relation", which is a logical construction agreeing with word's meaning.
It depends on what you mean by "having something to do with the other" but I see what you mean. I should've assumed the more favorable interpretation of the comment I was replying to. Reminds me of the pirates and global warming correlation.
