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

IF 7.6 1区 环境科学与生态学 Q1 ECOLOGY
Ecology Letters Pub Date : 2025-04-22 DOI:10.1111/ele.70029
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,&nbsp;Nick Huntington-Klein,&nbsp;E. William Schweiger,&nbsp;Melinda Martinez,&nbsp;Michael J. Osland,&nbsp;Laura C. Feher,&nbsp;Glenn R. Guntenspergen,&nbsp;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,&nbsp;Nick Huntington-Klein,&nbsp;E. William Schweiger,&nbsp;Melinda Martinez,&nbsp;Michael J. Osland,&nbsp;Laura C. Feher,&nbsp;Glenn R. Guntenspergen,&nbsp;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}
引用次数: 0

摘要

在生态学中,建立因果知识的科学愿望尽管非常重要,但却很少得到明确的讨论。当方法被描述为 "因果 "时,重点越来越多地放在分离关联以量化因果效应的统计技术上。与此相反,自然科学家历来通过研究系统各组成部分之间相互联系的机制来追求因果知识。在本文中,我们首先总结了最近发表的多证据因果研究范式,旨在调和相互冲突的观点。然后,我们介绍了因果统计学的一些基本原理,以及估计纯因果效应所面临的挑战。接下来,我们将介绍与因果机理研究相关的基本原则,这些原则侧重于描述传递因果效应的结构和过程。因果统计侧重于估计效应大小,而机理研究则侧重于描述将因果因素与反应联系起来的基本结构和过程的属性。每种研究方法之间都存在重大差异,每种研究的结果也不尽相同。最后,有理由认为,明确评估现有的机理知识应是因果关系调查的第一步。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。

Causal Effects Versus Causal Mechanisms: Two Traditions With Different Requirements and Contributions Towards Causal Understanding

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.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Ecology Letters
Ecology Letters 环境科学-生态学
CiteScore
17.60
自引率
3.40%
发文量
201
审稿时长
1.8 months
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.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信