[pavlov]

> "This book dwells on the history of statistics a lot, and statisticians, as the authors would have you believe, are zealots who have conspired to keep causal thinking out of their field right from the start."

I've read the book and have no dog in the fight. IMO this is an uncharitable interpretation of Pearl's position. The authors of the book present the work of many past statisticians on both sides of the causal debate. A few influential people are indeed rendered as almost caricatures, but clearly that doesn't represent the entire field when the authors also dive deeply into the work of other statisticians who explored causality.

[bart_spoon]

In multiple places Pearl castigated the entire field of statistics, in addition to outright character assassinations of long dead statisticians. I think the original author’s interpretation is perhaps too charitable.

[robwwilliams]

Agree with this counterpoint. Sewall Wright for one (and his father) are given great credit. It is RA Fisher who comes in for well deserved flak for his infamous obstinance.