Which part _did_ I understand and what part did I not, according to you?
Sorry, I'm sometimes snarky in the mornings. Giving the OP the benefit of the doubt, I presume they meant that correlation does not always equal causation, but that there is a middle ground of the "unknown" rather than just the inverse of a logical, mathematical statement. If you see a pattern from enough correlations, then you might let go of some of your own hubris. It's not black and white, and so on.
I'm sorry you feel I've been too binary and full of hubris. I'll take that to heart. Cheers!