比较鲁宾和珀尔的因果模型框架：Markus评论（2021）

IF 1.2 2区哲学 Q3 ECONOMICS

Economics and Philosophy Pub Date : 2022-02-04 DOI:10.1017/s0266267121000353

Naftali Weinberger

{"title":"比较鲁宾和珀尔的因果模型框架：Markus评论（2021）","authors":"Naftali Weinberger","doi":"10.1017/s0266267121000353","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"\n Markus (2021) argues that the causal modelling frameworks of Pearl and Rubin are not ‘strongly equivalent’, in the sense of saying ‘the same thing in different ways’. Here I rebut Markus’ arguments against strong equivalence. The differences between the frameworks are best illuminated not by appeal to their causal semantics, but rather reflect pragmatic modelling choices.","PeriodicalId":51643,"journal":{"name":"Economics and Philosophy","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.2000,"publicationDate":"2022-02-04","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"2","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Comparing Rubin and Pearl’s causal modelling frameworks: a commentary on Markus (2021)\",\"authors\":\"Naftali Weinberger\",\"doi\":\"10.1017/s0266267121000353\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"\\n Markus (2021) argues that the causal modelling frameworks of Pearl and Rubin are not ‘strongly equivalent’, in the sense of saying ‘the same thing in different ways’. Here I rebut Markus’ arguments against strong equivalence. The differences between the frameworks are best illuminated not by appeal to their causal semantics, but rather reflect pragmatic modelling choices.\",\"PeriodicalId\":51643,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Economics and Philosophy\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.2000,\"publicationDate\":\"2022-02-04\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"2\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Economics and Philosophy\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"98\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1017/s0266267121000353\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"哲学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"ECONOMICS\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Economics and Philosophy","FirstCategoryId":"98","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1017/s0266267121000353","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"ECONOMICS","Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 2

摘要

Markus（2021）认为，珀尔和鲁宾的因果建模框架并不是“非常等价”的，从“以不同的方式说同一件事”的意义上来说。在这里，我反驳了马库斯反对强对等的论点。框架之间的差异最好不是通过对因果语义的吸引力来说明，而是反映出务实的建模选择。

本文章由计算机程序翻译，如有差异，请以英文原文为准。

查看原文本刊更多论文

Comparing Rubin and Pearl’s causal modelling frameworks: a commentary on Markus (2021)

Markus (2021) argues that the causal modelling frameworks of Pearl and Rubin are not ‘strongly equivalent’, in the sense of saying ‘the same thing in different ways’. Here I rebut Markus’ arguments against strong equivalence. The differences between the frameworks are best illuminated not by appeal to their causal semantics, but rather reflect pragmatic modelling choices.

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

Economics and Philosophy Multiple-

CiteScore

1.80

自引率

8.30%

发文量

期刊介绍： The disciplines of economics and philosophy each possess their own special analytical methods, whose combination is powerful and fruitful. Each discipline can be enriched by the other. Economics and Philosophy aims to promote their mutual enrichment by publishing articles and book reviews in all areas linking these subjects. Topics include the methodology and epistemology of economics, the foundations of decision theory and game theory, the nature of rational choice in general, historical work on economics with a philosophical purpose, ethical issues in economics, the use of economic techniques in ethical theory, and many other subjects.