You're 100% correct. The point isn't just about causality. As an undergraduate, one of my philosophy professors (Bill Lycan) told a class "never attempt to def

You're 100% correct. The point isn't just about causality. As an undergraduate, one of my philosophy professors (Bill Lycan) told a class "never attempt to define anything in terms of counterfactuals. No matter what it is, there will be decisive counterexamples." To be super-clear, this is not a statement about Pearl, and it's not denying that counterfactuals are interesting, just a claim that you can't define much of anything in terms of them. P.S. He actually said "analyze", but the way philosophers use that term, it's appropriate to make the substitution to avoid confusion.