David Bourget (Western Ontario)
David Chalmers (ANU, NYU)
Rafael De Clercq
Jack Alan Reynolds
Learn more about PhilPapers
Philosophers and statisticians have been debating on causality for a long time. However, these discussions have been led quite independently from each other. An objective of this paper is to pursue a fruitful dialogue between philosophy and statistics. As is well known, at the beginning of the 20th century, some philosophers and statisticians dismissed the concept of causality altogether. It will suffice to mention Bertrand Russell (1913) and Karl Pearson (1911). Almost a hundred years later, causality still represents a central topic both in philosophy and statistics. In the social sciences, including research on public health, most studies are concerned with the possible causes, determinants, factors, etc. of a set of observations. In particular, for planning or policy reasons, it is important to know what causes which effects. In order to attain causal knowledge, many social scientists appeal to statistical modelling to confirm or disconfirm their hypotheses about possible causal relations among the variables they consider, taking care of controlling for relevant covariates and especially for possible confounding factors. To what extent can a statistical model say something about causal relations among variables? In this paper, we will attempt an answer by examining a special class of statistical models, i.e. structural models. The discussion, however, will not be confined to a mere examination of statistical methods, since a considerable effort will be made to consider causality from an epistemological perspective. To put it otherwise, this paper does not address the nature of causation itself, nor the analysis of various causal structures, nor the elaboration of complex causal structures; rather, we will be concerned with the question of how we come to uncover causal relations by means of statistical modelling. The practice of statistical modelling raises substantial issues of ontological nature..
|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
Lorenz Kruger (1976). Are Statistical Explanations Possible? Philosophy of Science 43 (1):129-146.
Gurol Irzik & Eric Meyer (1987). Causal Modeling: New Directions for Statistical Explanation. Philosophy of Science 54 (4):495-514.
Richard Scheines (2002). Computation and Causation. In James Moor & Terrell Ward Bynum (eds.), Cyberphilosophy: The Intersection of Philosophy and Computing. Blackwell Pub.. 158-180.
Gurol Irzik (1986). Causal Modeling and the Statistical Analysis of Causation. PSA: Proceedings of the Biennial Meeting of the Philosophy of Science Association 1986:12 - 23.
Federica Russo (2009). Causal Arrows in Econometric Models. Humana.Mente 10.
Judea Pearl (2000). Causality: Models, Reasoning, and Inference. Cambridge University Press.
Stefan Nowak (1960). Some Problems of Causal Interpretation of Statistical Relationships. Philosophy of Science 27 (1):23-38.
Joseph Berkovitz (2002). On Causal Inference in Determinism and Indeterminism. In Harald Atmanspacher & Robert C. Bishop (eds.), Between Chance and Choice: Interdisciplinary Perspectives on Determinism. Thorverton Uk: Imprint Academic. 237--278.
Added to index2009-01-28
Total downloads6 ( #230,346 of 1,410,405 )
Recent downloads (6 months)1 ( #177,872 of 1,410,405 )
How can I increase my downloads?