Tweetovi

Blokirali ste korisnika/cu @yudapearl

Jeste li sigurni da želite vidjeti te tweetove? Time nećete deblokirati korisnika/cu @yudapearl

  1. Prikvačeni tweet
    27. lip 2018.

    Hi everybody, the intense discussion over The Book of Why drove me to add my two cents. I will not be able to comment on every tweet, but I will try to squeak where it makes a difference.

    Poništi
  2. prije 5 sati

    , equally important question: "Suppose it was right, what would we do with it?". Attending to this question is pre-requisite to resolving causal problems such as Lord's Paradox. (or, more generally: should we adjust for base-line conditions?)

    Prikaži ovu nit
    Poništi
  3. prije 5 sati

    Any disdain or conspiratorial undertones on my side are imaginary at best. In fact, as I articulate here: I respectfully invite mainstreamers to join me in the effort, by temporarily halting the question "What if the model was wrong?" and attend to another

    Prikaži ovu nit
    Poništi
  4. prije 10 sati

    Correcting a link to the Lord Paradox posting. The correct link is and it should go to: Lord Paradox and the Power of Causal Thinking. (Thanks to Stephen Leroy for noting).

    Poništi
  5. prije 10 sati

    2/ sufficient for resolving the paradox, namely, for deciding if X increases Y for a person with unknown color. I would be happy to respond to anyone who thinks this statement is in some way incomplete.

    Prikaži ovu nit
    Poništi
  6. prije 10 sati

    1/ About a dozen or so readers have offered creative proposals for resolving Simpson's paradox in the X,Y,Color scatter plot example. I can't comments on each of the proposals, but I would beg the discussants to focus on my humble proposal: A causal model is both necessary and

    Tweet je nedostupan.
    Prikaži ovu nit
    Poništi
  7. 1. velj

    Cook & Campbell spent years enumerating threats to validity -- they could not do any better, and this paper explains why: . Today, that we know how to establish external validity, it is a pleasure to see all the threats that are circumvented.

    Poništi
  8. 1. velj

    I do not believe any of these countries thinks this "peace plan" was meant to be a peace plan. It was meant to be a sober reminder to Palestinians that time may no longer be on their side, to stop the tantrum and accept their neighbors as permanent, equally indigenous neighbors.

    Poništi
  9. proslijedio/la je Tweet

    It’s said that I’m a total failure, that I achieved nothing-but I have-just one thing: Brexit, my lifelong, publicly avowed, constantly sought, undisguised dream. Without me, would not be happening. My legacy is assured: Hallelujah!

    Poništi
  10. 1. velj

    A colleague alerted me to a new wikipedia entry on Market Blanket It is badly written, defining MB as a property of a graph, instead of a probability distribution. The most astonishing feature, uniqueness under positivity, is not mentioned.

    Poništi
  11. 1. velj

    3/3 when I remind them of the date, and their students still can't cope with a paradox that has haunted statistics for the past 120 years. Pearl unfairly bashes statistics, they say.

    Prikaži ovu nit
    Poništi
  12. 1. velj

    2/ Yet 90% of living statisticians still believe it can be "resolved" by re-visualizing data. My esteemed discussants on The American Statistician, (eg, Xiao-Li Meng) wouldn't even utter the word "causation". And it is 2020, and Statisticians get angry

    Prikaži ovu nit
    Poništi
  13. 1. velj

    1/Curious me took a glimpse at Michael Nielsen's blog, which triggered Gelman's discussion of Simpson's paradox . Michael is blunt: "[The paradox] shows that some of our ingrained intuitions about statistics are not just wrong, but spectacularly wrong." Yet

    Prikaži ovu nit
    Poništi
  14. 31. sij

    My disagreement with Gelman is fundamental, because his views represent an attitude that paralyzes wide circles of statistical researchers. My initial reaction was posted on Related posts: and

    Poništi
  15. 31. sij

    Retweeting my rebuttal to Imbens's paper, because readers complained about bad @@ signs in the original post. The link is still the same:

    Poništi
  16. 31. sij

    2/ deals with side effects in experimental settings). In this sense one can safely say that SCM provides legitimization for the logic of PO, but rejects PO as a "framework" or "approach"

    Prikaži ovu nit
    Poništi
  17. 31. sij

    1/ Another important clarification. In what way does SCM embrace the logic of PO? Ans. It supports the consistency rule Y_x = Y if X=x, which is the main inference engine of PO. Consistency a theorem in SCM and an assumption in PO (part of SUTVA, which

    Prikaži ovu nit
    Poništi
  18. 31. sij

    2/ (eg., ignorability conditions). Why can't PO start with what we believe? Because it insists on expressing everything in the language of Y_x, no structure, no DAGs, while SCM starts with the language in which scientific knowledge is stored: "who listens to whom?"

    Prikaži ovu nit
    Poništi
  19. 31. sij

    1/ Important clarification of this point: SCM embraces the counterfactual notation Y_x and its logic, but not the "PO approach" which is a research methodology built around Y_x. The fundamental difference: SCM starts with what you believe (eg DAG), PO starts with what you need (e

    Prikaži ovu nit
    Poništi
  20. 31. sij

    A chapter in history. Readers asked when the relationship between PO and DAGs was first reported. My earliest record is this '93 Stat Conference in Florence (Section 6) As I recall, the audience had NO IDEA what I was talking about - blank eyed.

    Poništi
  21. 30. sij

    For the benefit of all readers, I have compiled my "Causal, Casual and Curious" articles in one searchable page, now posted here: . Enjoy.

    Poništi

Čini se da učitavanje traje već neko vrijeme.

Twitter je možda preopterećen ili ima kratkotrajnih poteškoća u radu. Pokušajte ponovno ili potražite dodatne informacije u odjeljku Status Twittera.

    Možda bi vam se svidjelo i ovo:

    ·