3 ms·

But the alternative I proposed is coming up with quantitative laws, not vague astrology like "Race A does this more often than Race B, therefore we need to do l

by nonbel 10y ago

But the alternative I proposed is coming up with quantitative laws, not vague astrology like "Race A does this more often than Race B, therefore we need to do less of C". That is an interesting connection to make though. If people view wild speculation as the alternative focus of research, incorporating the concept of causality would at least slow them down. This would reduce the amount of misinformation generated and number of destructive policies implemented. Still, I think causality offers more than that.

epistasis 10y ago
> the alternative I proposed is coming up with quantitative laws, not vague astrology like "Race A does this more often than Race B, therefore we need to do less of C". You appear to be saying that causality is not quantitative, however that is not true.
- Retra 10y ago
  No, they're saying the causal relation does not add much more (quantitatively speaking) to an existing correlative relation. They're suggesting we throw out the part that distinguishes causal from correlative, not correlative reasoning altogether.
  - epistasis 10y ago
    If that's that what nonbel is actually saying, then nonbel does not have much experience with modern science. The difference between P(Y|X) and P(Y|do(X)) are, in my scientific experience, the difference between doing science and doing statistics. The difference between understanding and guessing. This is precisely the difference between quantitative understanding and "astrology," as they phrased it.
nerdponx 10y ago
How do you distinguish a "law" from "astrology" in this case?
- Retra 10y ago
  The same way you distinguish rational belief from rationalization. Namely, in that a rational belief is justified on the basis of prior experiences, while a rationalization is justified on the basis of impracticality due to ignorance.
- nonbel 10y ago
  A law will make some precise quantitative prediction, "astrology" will make vague predictions like "A is correlated with B", or "A is positively correlated with B". Here is a spielraum[1] of possible experimental results, with the * indicating the region consistent with a law: 1) |------*------| Here it is for a vague speculation that there is "some correlation" (ie astrology): 2) |******-******| You can see it will be much easier to find evidence consistent with #2 than #1, even if there is nothing to the ideas at all. [1] Paul Meehl. 1990. Appraising and Amending Theories: The Strategy of Lakatosian Defense and Two Principles That Warrant It. Psychological Inquiry 1990, Vol. 1, No. 2, 108-141. http://rhowell.ba.ttu.edu/meehl1.pdf http://rhowell.ba.ttu.edu/meehl1.pdf [figure 3]

by nonbel 10y ago

epistasis 10y ago

> the alternative I proposed is coming up with quantitative laws, not vague astrology like "Race A does this more often than Race B, therefore we need to do less of C". You appear to be saying that causality is not quantitative, however that is not true.

Retra 10y ago
No, they're saying the causal relation does not add much more (quantitatively speaking) to an existing correlative relation. They're suggesting we throw out the part that distinguishes causal from correlative, not correlative reasoning altogether.
- epistasis 10y ago
  If that's that what nonbel is actually saying, then nonbel does not have much experience with modern science. The difference between P(Y|X) and P(Y|do(X)) are, in my scientific experience, the difference between doing science and doing statistics. The difference between understanding and guessing. This is precisely the difference between quantitative understanding and "astrology," as they phrased it.

nerdponx 10y ago

How do you distinguish a "law" from "astrology" in this case?

Retra 10y ago
The same way you distinguish rational belief from rationalization. Namely, in that a rational belief is justified on the basis of prior experiences, while a rationalization is justified on the basis of impracticality due to ignorance.
nonbel 10y ago
A law will make some precise quantitative prediction, "astrology" will make vague predictions like "A is correlated with B", or "A is positively correlated with B". Here is a spielraum[1] of possible experimental results, with the * indicating the region consistent with a law: 1) |------*------| Here it is for a vague speculation that there is "some correlation" (ie astrology): 2) |******-******| You can see it will be much easier to find evidence consistent with #2 than #1, even if there is nothing to the ideas at all. [1] Paul Meehl. 1990. Appraising and Amending Theories: The Strategy of Lakatosian Defense and Two Principles That Warrant It. Psychological Inquiry 1990, Vol. 1, No. 2, 108-141. http://rhowell.ba.ttu.edu/meehl1.pdf http://rhowell.ba.ttu.edu/meehl1.pdf [figure 3]