Got a link to the best overview/defense of that claim? I’m open to this argument but have some cached thoughts about Pearl’s framework being unsatisfactory—would be useful to do some more reading and see if I still believe them.
There are some cases where Pearl and others’ causality framework can be improved—supposedly Factored Sets will, although I personally don’t understand it. I was recently informed that certain abductive counterfactual phrases due to David Lewis are not well-captured by Pearl’s system. I believe there are also other ways—all of this is actively being researched.
What do you find unsatisfactory about Pearl?
All of this is besides the point which is that there is a powerful well-developed, highly elegant theory of causality with an enourmous range of applications.
Rubin’s framework (which I am told is equivalent to Pearl) is used throughout econometrics—indeed econometrics is best understand as the Science of Causality.
I am not an expert—I am trying to learn much of this theory right now. I am probably not the best person to ask about theory of causality. That said:
I am not sure to what degree you are already familiar with Pearl’s theory of causality but I recommend
For a much more leisurely argument for Pearl’s viewpoint, I recommend his “book of why”. In a pinch you could take a look at the book review on the causality bloglist on LW.
Got a link to the best overview/defense of that claim? I’m open to this argument but have some cached thoughts about Pearl’s framework being unsatisfactory—would be useful to do some more reading and see if I still believe them.
There are some cases where Pearl and others’ causality framework can be improved—supposedly Factored Sets will, although I personally don’t understand it. I was recently informed that certain abductive counterfactual phrases due to David Lewis are not well-captured by Pearl’s system. I believe there are also other ways—all of this is actively being researched.
What do you find unsatisfactory about Pearl?
All of this is besides the point which is that there is a powerful well-developed, highly elegant theory of causality with an enourmous range of applications.
Rubin’s framework (which I am told is equivalent to Pearl) is used throughout econometrics—indeed econometrics is best understand as the Science of Causality.
I am not an expert—I am trying to learn much of this theory right now. I am probably not the best person to ask about theory of causality. That said:
I am not sure to what degree you are already familiar with Pearl’s theory of causality but I recommend
https://michaelnielsen.org/ddi/if-correlation-doesnt-imply-causation-then-what-does/
for an excellent introduction.
THere is EY’s
https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/hzuSDMx7pd2uxFc5w/causal-diagrams-and-causal-models
which you may or may not find convincing
For a much more leisurely argument for Pearl’s viewpoint, I recommend his “book of why”. In a pinch you could take a look at the book review on the causality bloglist on LW.
https://www.lesswrong.com/tag/causality