I agree with sociologist David Weakliem when he writes the above sentence.
Here’s the full paragraph:
Krugman says, “you can, if you like, try to argue that this relationship is spurious, maybe not causal.” Actually, I [Weakliem] liked his original figure, since I agree with Krugman on economic policy. But thinking about the possibility of spurious correlation isn’t a matter of liking—it should be pretty much automatic.
And the full story is here.
That last bit (“it isn’t a matter of liking—it should be pretty much automatic”) holds for a lot of statistical issues, not just spurious correlation. I think that Weakliem’s illustrating a general issue, when someone does a statistical analysis and goes into “story time“—they’ll sometimes bring up a potential objection (in this case, spurious correlation) but not take it seriously. Better to bring it up than to not mention it at all. But better still would be to more fully recognize the limitations of one’s analysis. So good catch by Weakliem on this one.