IlyaShpitser comments on Confound it! Correlation is (usually) not causation! But why not? - LessWrong

44 Post author: gwern 09 July 2014 03:04AM

You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.

Comments (34)

You are viewing a single comment's thread. Show more comments above.

Comment author: IlyaShpitser 25 July 2014 09:00:44PM *  3 points [-]

Causes do cancel out in some structures, and Nature does not select randomly (e.g. evolution might select for cancellation for homeostasis reasons). So the argument that most models are faithful is not always convincing.

This is a real issue, a causal version of a related issue in statistics where two types of statistical dependence cancel out such that there is a conditional independence in the data, but underlying phenomena are related.


I don't think gwern has a mistaken epistemology, however, because this issue exists. The issue just makes causal (and statistical) inference harder.

Comment author: [deleted] 25 July 2014 09:47:22PM 2 points [-]

I agree completely.