2 ms·
I'm familiar with the usual potential outcomes framework, and some of the high level machinery of Pearl's version too, but this 'type causality' vs 'actual caus
by 6gvONxR4sf7o 7y ago
I'm familiar with the usual potential outcomes framework, and some of the high level machinery of Pearl's version too, but this 'type causality' vs 'actual causality' mentioned in the intro seems like a very unnecessary complication that just confuses things.
They use "smoking causes lung cancer" as an example of type causality. A counterpart in actual causality would be "Dave's smoking caused him to get lung cancer." Then they go on to talk about how these are such different kinds of causality.
They're no more different than "Dave has $35 in his pocket" and "the average american has $21 in their wallet."
Seems totally unnecessary. Am I missing something?
- xtacy 7y agoThe distinction serves a real and practical purpose, as mentioned in the introduction: responsibility/blame assignment. In legal situations, this blame assignment is critical as it helps identify who is actually responsible for some bad outcome. Would you agree?
- 6gvONxR4sf7o 7y agoI get that individual treatment effects are useful as well as average treatment effects. I just don't get how how that requires a new conceptual type of causality.
- CrazyStat 7y agoPerhaps Dave is suing his employer for compensation because he developed cancer after working with material which was later found to be carcinogenic. Dave's employer argues that since Dave was a smoker, his smoking caused his lung cancer, and they are not liable. Dave admits thats smoking causes lung cancer, but argues that it did not cause his lung cancer.
- 6gvONxR4sf7o 7y agoRight, and that fits in the usual potential outcomes framework without needing to distinguish two types of causality.