Synthese 121 (1-2):29-54 (1999)

Authors
Paul Humphreys
University of Virginia
Abstract
There have been many efforts to infer causation from association byusing statistical models. Algorithms for automating this processare a more recent innovation. In Humphreys and Freedman[(1996) British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 47, 113–123] we showed that one such approach, by Spirtes et al., was fatally flawed. Here we put our arguments in a broader context and reply to Korb and Wallace [(1997) British Journal for thePhilosophy of Science 48, 543–553] and to Spirtes et al.[(1997) British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 48, 555–568]. Their arguments leave our position unchanged: claims to have developed a rigorous engine for inferring causation from association are premature at best, the theorems have no implications for samples of any realistic size, and the examples used to illustrate the algorithms are indicative of failure rather than success. The gap between association and causation has yet to be bridged.
Keywords Philosophy   Philosophy   Epistemology   Logic   Metaphysics   Philosophy of Language
Categories No categories specified
(categorize this paper)
DOI 10.1023/A:1005277613752
Options
Edit this record
Mark as duplicate
Export citation
Find it on Scholar
Request removal from index
Revision history

Download options

PhilArchive copy


Upload a copy of this paper     Check publisher's policy     Papers currently archived: 65,714
Through your library

References found in this work BETA

Add more references

Citations of this work BETA

The Limits of Piecemeal Causal Inference.Conor Mayo-Wilson - 2014 - British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 65 (2):213-249.

View all 9 citations / Add more citations

Similar books and articles

Analytics

Added to PP index
2009-01-28

Total views
85 ( #130,445 of 2,462,595 )

Recent downloads (6 months)
1 ( #449,387 of 2,462,595 )

How can I increase my downloads?

Downloads

My notes