@themattsimpson @sarahdoingthing "Causality is just stuff making stuff happen." circular
-
-
Replying to @GrumplessGrinch
@GrumplessGrinch @themattsimpson Don't understand it, haven't tried hard, my logic background is weak.@Meaningness thinks it's wrong.1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @St_Rev
@St_Rev @themattsimpson tbh I haven't read many criticisms of it, should read more.@Meaningness do you have a piece on the topic?1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @GrumplessGrinch
@GrumplessGrinch Pearl’s thing is not “wrong,” but is applicable only in limited, highly-controlled circumstances.1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @Meaningness
@GrumplessGrinch Also, it doesn’t correspond to ordinary-person understanding of causality (only statistician’s meaning; not same).1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @Meaningness
@GrumplessGrinch It assumes you have a small, fixed, perfectly-defined set of variables, and only a subset of possible interactions between.1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
-
Replying to @GrumplessGrinch
@GrumplessGrinch Yes, it’s fine; just not a general account of causality in either common-sense or scientific understanding.1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @Meaningness
@Meaningness It's not *tractable* at scale, I agree. But what does it fail to account for?1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes
@GrumplessGrinch commonsense version has objects or events as causes; Pearl version has only variables.
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.