8 ms·

Judea Pearl's work on causality is some of the most important statistics work that is happening these days. We've known how to do statistics to find correlation

Judea Pearl's work on causality is some of the most important statistics work that is happening these days. We've known how to do statistics to find correlations and make inferences, but he put causality on a firm mathematical basis, and discovered fascinating statistics as he did. This book should be a blast.

fenomas 11y ago
Can you recommend any casual (article-sized) reading about this? Sounds really interesting! Edit: xtacy's post answers me entirely.
- stalaie 11y ago
  Check out his turing award lecture: http://amturing.acm.org/vp/pearl_2658896.cfm http://amturing.acm.org/vp/pearl_2658896.cfm
- mazr 11y ago
  For a quick and general purpose introduction on Causality, the Epilogue of a former book of Pearl is great : "The Art and Science of Cause and Effect" http://bayes.cs.ucla.edu/BOOK-2K/causality2-epilogue.pdf http://bayes.cs.ucla.edu/BOOK-2K/causality2-epilogue.pdf
  - fenomas 11y ago
    Thank you! This rather blew my mind and I hope others take time to try it out.
nl 11y ago
His WSJ article about the murder of his son (WSJ journalist Daniel Pearl) was well-considered, too: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123362422088941893.html http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123362422088941893.html
- bbcbasic 11y ago
  I am not sure how that can be called well considered. He really shouldn't throw stones in glass houses. It is clearly a pro-Israel piece, he even alludes to the bulldozing regime as being acceptable without directly saying it. Shameful to use his sons death for this propaganda.
  - arcanus 11y ago
    > Shameful to use his sons death for this propaganda. I don't have strong feelings towards his views, but I don't see how it can be called propaganda. He presents a reasoned argument, in contrast to the violence that was visited upon his child. I consider that admirable.
pmoriarty 11y ago
Ever since David Hume[1], a couple of hundred years ago (and arguably long before him), causality has been recognized to stand on very shaky philosophical grounds. It will be interesting to learn what statisticians can make of it. Even if there is in fact a firm mathematical foundation on which causality can rest, that in itself is problematic because mathematicians themselves have mostly given up trying to find foundations for mathematics. [1] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Hume https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Hume
- stdbrouw 11y ago
  They're different questions to some extent. In the statistical literature on causality, the counterfactual definition is almost universally accepted: if you do X then Y happens, but if you wouldn't have done X, Y wouldn't have happened. So the main challenge that statisticians are tackling is not the ontological question of whether causality can really be said to exist in the world, but rather the practical question of how to make measurements performed at different times, in different places, on different people, using different machinery, as comparable as possible.

fenomas 11y ago

Can you recommend any casual (article-sized) reading about this? Sounds really interesting! Edit: xtacy's post answers me entirely.

stalaie 11y ago
Check out his turing award lecture: http://amturing.acm.org/vp/pearl_2658896.cfm http://amturing.acm.org/vp/pearl_2658896.cfm
mazr 11y ago
For a quick and general purpose introduction on Causality, the Epilogue of a former book of Pearl is great : "The Art and Science of Cause and Effect" http://bayes.cs.ucla.edu/BOOK-2K/causality2-epilogue.pdf http://bayes.cs.ucla.edu/BOOK-2K/causality2-epilogue.pdf
- fenomas 11y ago
  Thank you! This rather blew my mind and I hope others take time to try it out.

nl 11y ago

His WSJ article about the murder of his son (WSJ journalist Daniel Pearl) was well-considered, too: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123362422088941893.html http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123362422088941893.html

bbcbasic 11y ago
I am not sure how that can be called well considered. He really shouldn't throw stones in glass houses. It is clearly a pro-Israel piece, he even alludes to the bulldozing regime as being acceptable without directly saying it. Shameful to use his sons death for this propaganda.
- arcanus 11y ago
  > Shameful to use his sons death for this propaganda. I don't have strong feelings towards his views, but I don't see how it can be called propaganda. He presents a reasoned argument, in contrast to the violence that was visited upon his child. I consider that admirable.

pmoriarty 11y ago

Ever since David Hume[1], a couple of hundred years ago (and arguably long before him), causality has been recognized to stand on very shaky philosophical grounds. It will be interesting to learn what statisticians can make of it. Even if there is in fact a firm mathematical foundation on which causality can rest, that in itself is problematic because mathematicians themselves have mostly given up trying to find foundations for mathematics. [1] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Hume https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Hume

stdbrouw 11y ago
They're different questions to some extent. In the statistical literature on causality, the counterfactual definition is almost universally accepted: if you do X then Y happens, but if you wouldn't have done X, Y wouldn't have happened. So the main challenge that statisticians are tackling is not the ontological question of whether causality can really be said to exist in the world, but rather the practical question of how to make measurements performed at different times, in different places, on different people, using different machinery, as comparable as possible.