Here is more context to the question.
A common example given of the “obviousness” that correlation does not equal causation is that shark attacks correlate with ice cream consumption. The explanation given is that the “actual” cause is that more people go to the beach on days that are hotter - thus the “missing” causal link is that people visit the beach.
But of course - that’s just a correlation too. One could say that it is not that people are on the beach that is the cause, the beach is just a correlation, the cause is that they get in the water.
But that could be a correlation, it is not that they are in the water, it is that they are in the water deeply and swimming, or perhaps it is that the sharks migrate through that time of the year, or perhaps the sun hitting the water reflects at an angle at that time of day that affects the sharks in a particular way and it corresponds to a common time that people eat ice cream.
The rat hole of correlation could go endlessly down different “concepts” and levels of abstraction of causation. Given that the causation at the end of that hole is a correlation, why is causation not just a special case of correlation?