Absolutely not as assuming causation implies you know the directionality of the relationship. Cancer correlates pretty well with old age but you'd be pretty silly to assume that it causes old age.
By "assume causation" I meant "assume there is a causative link", which for cancer appears to be true to a degree. So if I specify and say "is it sound to assume a causative link [without specifying the cause and effect direction or that link] where a strong direct correlation is observed" (or similar wording) would you go for that?
There are many examples of course to prompt this clarification - fatness causes over-eating, bruises cause people to get hit, et cetera. There are also likely many examples where the direction of the causation is not clear - poverty and [minor] theft say.
Can you [or anyone] give an example where a causative relationship as a first hypothesis is ludicrous without questioning direction of the relationship?
