3 ms·

A discussion about this book on the statistics StackExchange, with some interesting answers: "The Book of Why by Judea Pearl: Why is he bashing statistics?" htt

by svat 8y ago

A discussion about this book on the statistics StackExchange, with some interesting answers: "The Book of Why by Judea Pearl: Why is he bashing statistics?" https://stats.stackexchange.com/questions/376920/the-book-of-why-by-judea-pearl-why-is-he-bashing-statistics https://stats.stackexchange.com/questions/376920/the-book-of...

nkurz 8y ago
Yes, that has lots of great stuff in the comments. One of them (convolutedly just added based on a link provided in a comment on the Gelman blog post) was to this review: https://www.kdnuggets.com/2018/06/gray-pearl-book-of-why.html https://www.kdnuggets.com/2018/06/gray-pearl-book-of-why.htm.... The review, and then back-and-forth at the bottom and in comments between Gray and Pearl are wonderful context.
- kgwgk 8y ago
  The irony in this comment is priceless: “Simpson’s paradox in its various forms is something that generations of researchers and statisticians have been trained to look out for. And we do. There is nothing mysterious about it. (This debate regarding Simpsons, which appeared in The American Statistician in 2014, and which I link in the article, hopefully will be visible to readers who are not ASA members.)” There is nothing mysterious about Simpson’s paradox but the proper answer is still being debated! Pearl’s response ends as follows: “The next step is to let the community explore: 1) How many statisticians can actually answer Simpson’s question, and 2) How to make that number reach 90%. I believe The Book of Why has already doubled that number, which is some progress. It is in fact something that I was not able to do in the past thirty years through laborious discussions with the leading statisticians of our time. It is some progress, let’s continue.” http://causality.cs.ucla.edu/blog/index.php/2018/06/15/a-statisticians-re-reaction-to-the-book-of-why http://causality.cs.ucla.edu/blog/index.php/2018/06/15/a-sta...

by svat 8y ago

nkurz 8y ago

Yes, that has lots of great stuff in the comments. One of them (convolutedly just added based on a link provided in a comment on the Gelman blog post) was to this review: https://www.kdnuggets.com/2018/06/gray-pearl-book-of-why.html https://www.kdnuggets.com/2018/06/gray-pearl-book-of-why.htm.... The review, and then back-and-forth at the bottom and in comments between Gray and Pearl are wonderful context.

kgwgk 8y ago
The irony in this comment is priceless: “Simpson’s paradox in its various forms is something that generations of researchers and statisticians have been trained to look out for. And we do. There is nothing mysterious about it. (This debate regarding Simpsons, which appeared in The American Statistician in 2014, and which I link in the article, hopefully will be visible to readers who are not ASA members.)” There is nothing mysterious about Simpson’s paradox but the proper answer is still being debated! Pearl’s response ends as follows: “The next step is to let the community explore: 1) How many statisticians can actually answer Simpson’s question, and 2) How to make that number reach 90%. I believe The Book of Why has already doubled that number, which is some progress. It is in fact something that I was not able to do in the past thirty years through laborious discussions with the leading statisticians of our time. It is some progress, let’s continue.” http://causality.cs.ucla.edu/blog/index.php/2018/06/15/a-statisticians-re-reaction-to-the-book-of-why http://causality.cs.ucla.edu/blog/index.php/2018/06/15/a-sta...