|
|
|
|
|
by mycorrhizal
2717 days ago
|
|
I think you are overstating Judea Pearl's argument. He doesn't claim it is impossible to answer causal questions (on observational data) without resorting to do-calculus. What he does claim is that to answer causal (interventional or counterfactual) questions you need to define a model and reason on that model in a way that transforms the question into conditional probabilities. Do-calculus provides a framework to help you perform that reasoning, but certainly people have been using things like the backdoor criterion before the invention of do-calculus to answer interventional questions. He might claim that any other method can be reduced to do-calculus. I'm not sure. I do believe at the core of his argument is need for an explicit model. |
|
Here he asks a very simple question and look at the body language from the panel: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mFYM9j8bGtg&t=50m47s