James B. Grace, Nick Huntington-Klein, E. William Schweiger, Melinda Martinez, Michael J. Osland, Laura C. Feher, Glenn R. Guntenspergen, Karen M. Thorne
{"title":"因果效应与因果机制:两种不同要求的传统及其对因果理解的贡献","authors":"James B. Grace, Nick Huntington-Klein, E. William Schweiger, Melinda Martinez, Michael J. Osland, Laura C. Feher, Glenn R. Guntenspergen, Karen M. Thorne","doi":"10.1111/ele.70029","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p>The scientific aspiration of building causal knowledge has received little explicit discussion in ecology despite its fundamental importance. When methods are described as ‘causal’, emphasis is increasingly placed on statistical techniques for isolating associations so as to quantify causal effects. In contrast, natural scientists have historically approached the pursuit of causal knowledge through the investigation of mechanisms that interconnect the components of systems. In this paper, we first summarise a recently published multievidence paradigm for causal studies meant to reconcile conflicting viewpoints. We then describe some of the basic principles of causal statistics and the challenge of estimating pure causal effects. We follow that by describing basic principles related to causal mechanistic investigations, which focus on characterising the structures and processes conveying causal effects. While causal statistics focuses on estimating effect sizes, mechanistic investigations focus on characterising the attributes of the underlying structures and processes linking causative agents to responses. There are important differences between how one approaches each endeavour, as well as differences in what is obtained from each type of investigation. Finally, the case is made that an explicit assessment of existing mechanistic knowledge should be an initial step in causal investigations.</p>","PeriodicalId":161,"journal":{"name":"Ecology Letters","volume":"28 4","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":7.6000,"publicationDate":"2025-04-22","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/ele.70029","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Causal Effects Versus Causal Mechanisms: Two Traditions With Different Requirements and Contributions Towards Causal Understanding\",\"authors\":\"James B. Grace, Nick Huntington-Klein, E. William Schweiger, Melinda Martinez, Michael J. Osland, Laura C. Feher, Glenn R. Guntenspergen, Karen M. Thorne\",\"doi\":\"10.1111/ele.70029\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p>The scientific aspiration of building causal knowledge has received little explicit discussion in ecology despite its fundamental importance. When methods are described as ‘causal’, emphasis is increasingly placed on statistical techniques for isolating associations so as to quantify causal effects. In contrast, natural scientists have historically approached the pursuit of causal knowledge through the investigation of mechanisms that interconnect the components of systems. In this paper, we first summarise a recently published multievidence paradigm for causal studies meant to reconcile conflicting viewpoints. We then describe some of the basic principles of causal statistics and the challenge of estimating pure causal effects. We follow that by describing basic principles related to causal mechanistic investigations, which focus on characterising the structures and processes conveying causal effects. While causal statistics focuses on estimating effect sizes, mechanistic investigations focus on characterising the attributes of the underlying structures and processes linking causative agents to responses. There are important differences between how one approaches each endeavour, as well as differences in what is obtained from each type of investigation. Finally, the case is made that an explicit assessment of existing mechanistic knowledge should be an initial step in causal investigations.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":161,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Ecology Letters\",\"volume\":\"28 4\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":7.6000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-04-22\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/ele.70029\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Ecology Letters\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"93\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/ele.70029\",\"RegionNum\":1,\"RegionCategory\":\"环境科学与生态学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"ECOLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Ecology Letters","FirstCategoryId":"93","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/ele.70029","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"环境科学与生态学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"ECOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
Causal Effects Versus Causal Mechanisms: Two Traditions With Different Requirements and Contributions Towards Causal Understanding
The scientific aspiration of building causal knowledge has received little explicit discussion in ecology despite its fundamental importance. When methods are described as ‘causal’, emphasis is increasingly placed on statistical techniques for isolating associations so as to quantify causal effects. In contrast, natural scientists have historically approached the pursuit of causal knowledge through the investigation of mechanisms that interconnect the components of systems. In this paper, we first summarise a recently published multievidence paradigm for causal studies meant to reconcile conflicting viewpoints. We then describe some of the basic principles of causal statistics and the challenge of estimating pure causal effects. We follow that by describing basic principles related to causal mechanistic investigations, which focus on characterising the structures and processes conveying causal effects. While causal statistics focuses on estimating effect sizes, mechanistic investigations focus on characterising the attributes of the underlying structures and processes linking causative agents to responses. There are important differences between how one approaches each endeavour, as well as differences in what is obtained from each type of investigation. Finally, the case is made that an explicit assessment of existing mechanistic knowledge should be an initial step in causal investigations.
期刊介绍:
Ecology Letters serves as a platform for the rapid publication of innovative research in ecology. It considers manuscripts across all taxa, biomes, and geographic regions, prioritizing papers that investigate clearly stated hypotheses. The journal publishes concise papers of high originality and general interest, contributing to new developments in ecology. Purely descriptive papers and those that only confirm or extend previous results are discouraged.