Graduate studies at Western
Philosophy of Science 72 (5):900-912 (2005)
|Abstract||Standard statistical measures of strength of association, although pioneered by Pearson deliberately to be acausal, nowadays are routinely used to measure causal efficacy. But their acausal origins have left them ill suited to this latter purpose. I distinguish between two different conceptions of causal efficacy, and argue that: 1) Both conceptions can be useful 2) The statistical measures only attempt to capture the first of them 3) They are not fully successful even at this 4) An alternative definition more squarely based on causal thinking not only captures the second conception, it can also capture the first one better too.|
|Keywords||No keywords specified (fix it)|
|Categories||categorize this paper)|
|Through your library||Configure|
Similar books and articles
Frederick S. Ellett Jr & David P. Ericson (1986). An Analysis of Probabilistic Causation in Dichotomous Structures. Synthese 67 (2):175 - 193.
Frederick S. Elett & David P. Ericson (1986). An Analysis of Probabilistic Causation in Dichotomous Structures. Synthese 67 (2):175-193.
Gurol Irzik & Eric Meyer (1987). Causal Modeling: New Directions for Statistical Explanation. Philosophy of Science 54 (4):495-514.
Stefan Nowak (1960). Some Problems of Causal Interpretation of Statistical Relationships. Philosophy of Science 27 (1):23-38.
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.
Robert Northcott (2006). Causal Efficacy and the Analysis of Variance. Biology and Philosophy 21 (2):253-276.
Sorry, there are not enough data points to plot this chart.
Added to index2009-01-28
Total downloads2 ( #246,970 of 740,099 )
Recent downloads (6 months)0
How can I increase my downloads?