David Bourget (Western Ontario)
David Chalmers (ANU, NYU)
Rafael De Clercq
Jack Alan Reynolds
Learn more about PhilPapers
Journal of Philosophy 104 (9):464-474 (2007)
In everyday matters, as well as in law, we allow that someone’s reasons can be causes of her actions, and often are. That correct reasoning accords with Bayesian principles is now so widely held in philosophy, psychology, computer science and elsewhere that the contrary is beginning to seem obtuse, or at best quaint. And that rational agents should learn about the world from energies striking sensory inputs nerves in people—seems beyond question. Even rats seem to recognize the difference between correlation and causation,1 and accordingly make different inferences from passive observation than from interventions. A few statisticians aside,” so do most of us. To square these views with the demands of computability, increasing numbers of psychologists and others have embraced a particular formalization, causal Bayes nets, as an account of human reasoning about and to causal connections.111 Such structures can be used by rational agents, including humans in so far as they are rational, to have degrees of belief in various conceptual contents, which they use to reason to expectations, which are realized or defeated by sensory inputs, which cause them to change their degrees of belief in other contents in accord with Bayes Rule, or some generalization of it. How is all of this supposed to be carried out? l. Representing Causal Structures The causal Bayes net framework adopted by a growing number of psychologists goes like this: Our representations of causal relations are captured in a graphical causal.
|Keywords||No keywords specified (fix it)|
|Categories||categorize this paper)|
Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server
Configure custom proxy (use this if your affiliation does not provide a proxy)
|Through your library|
References found in this work BETA
No references found.
Citations of this work BETA
No citations found.
Similar books and articles
Clark Glymour & David Danks (2007). Reasons as Causes in Bayesian Epistemology. Journal of Philosophy 104 (9):464-474.
Alison Gopnik, Clark Glymour, David M. Sobel, Laura Schulz, Tamar Kushnir & David Danks, A Theory of Causal Learning in Children: Causal Maps and Bayes Nets.
Jon Williamson (2004). Bayesian Nets and Causality: Philosophical and Computational Foundations. OUP Oxford.
Alison Gopnik, Clark Glymour, David M. Sobel & Laura E. Schultz, Causal Learning in Children: Causal Maps and Bayes Nets.
Franz Dietrich & Christian List (2013). Reasons for (Prior) Belief in Bayesian Epistemology. Synthese 190 (5):781-786.
Richard Scheines, Matt Easterday & David Danks (2007). Teaching the Normative Theory of Causal Reasoning. In Alison Gopnik & Laura Schulz (eds.), Causal Learning: Psychology, Philosophy, and Computation. Oxford University Press. 119--38.
York Hagmayer & Magda Osman (2012). From Colliding Billiard Balls to Colluding Desperate Housewives: Causal Bayes Nets as Rational Models of Everyday Causal Reasoning. Synthese 189 (S1):17-28.
David Danks (2005). The Supposed Competition Between Theories of Human Causal Inference. Philosophical Psychology 18 (2):259 – 272.
Thomas L. Griffiths, David M. Sobel, Joshua B. Tenenbaum & Alison Gopnik (2011). Bayes and Blickets: Effects of Knowledge on Causal Induction in Children and Adults. Cognitive Science 35 (8):1407-1455.
Peter Spirtes (2011). Intervention, Determinism, and the Causal Minimality Condition. Synthese 182 (3):335-347.
Caren A. Frosch, Teresa McCormack, David A. Lagnado & Patrick Burns (2012). Are Causal Structure and Intervention Judgments Inextricably Linked? A Developmental Study. Cognitive Science 36 (2):261-285.
D. Lynn Holt (1988). Teleological Explanation: A Species of Causal Explanation. Philosophical Psychology 1 (3):313-325.
Added to index2010-09-24
Total downloads12 ( #129,919 of 1,102,697 )
Recent downloads (6 months)1 ( #296,698 of 1,102,697 )
How can I increase my downloads?