[Xen9]

This is the problem of gnosis vs doxa. Regardless of one's intelligence, since the priors (or rather posteriors as at least I as Bayesian thinker would really look at paper X and then look at who made it (how much funding they had), where, and the context (is this obvious marketing) and compute from overly safe approximation it's BS, the actual probability that tou call priors) actually are reliable & you cannot know what you cannot know & Postman.

So then you are hands in the air, trying to get others internalize, a discussion culture where you actually can as normal thing claim or are by default assumed to be probably superficial.

Even if someone knows lots about foundational things like philosophy & what they want etc., statements have a certain feel to it regardless of mathematical truthness, and at some point you will do the value benefit calculation that you might be superficial but you should learn about others topics first because you know you can for less time gain more information that is valuable from them.

---

Pearl's causality as far as I see is best modelled with cdr car + NBG as embedded agency foundations + computability in the mix + signal theory (time as discrete evolution from one state in the chain to another; signal theory is relevant when you have multiple agents or the environment & PARTS of you run at different clocks or something more complex) i.e. part of formal embedded agency. Doesn't feel too meaningful without it except epistemologically (close what can we know type questions) where causality might be a good lens, especially to filter inquiries.