因果关系、困惑与辛普森悖论

A. Zaman, Taseer Salahuddin
{"title":"因果关系、困惑与辛普森悖论","authors":"A. Zaman, Taseer Salahuddin","doi":"10.33818/ier.687042","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Bitter fighting among Christian factions and immoral behavior among Church leaders led to a transition to secular thought in Europe (see Zaman (2018) for details). One of the consequences of rejection of religion was the rejection of all unobservables. Empiricists like David Hume rejected all knowledge which was not based on observations and logic. He famously stated that: ““If we take in our hand any volume; of divinity or school metaphysics, for instance; let us ask, Does it contain any abstract reasoning concerning quantity or number? No. Does it contain any experimental reasoning concerning matter of fact and existence? No. Commit it then to the flames: for it can contain nothing but sophistry and illusion.” David Hume further realized that causality was not observable. This means that it is observable that event Y happened after event X, but it is not observable that Y happened due to X. The underlying mechanisms which connect X to Y are not observable. Current Article discusses the impact of changing causal structures on relationships and results of econometric analysis. it shows that conventional econometric analysis is devoid of causal chains which makes it impossible to get realistic results.","PeriodicalId":32692,"journal":{"name":"International Econometric Review","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2020-06-08","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Causality, Confounding, and Simpson’s Paradox\",\"authors\":\"A. Zaman, Taseer Salahuddin\",\"doi\":\"10.33818/ier.687042\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Bitter fighting among Christian factions and immoral behavior among Church leaders led to a transition to secular thought in Europe (see Zaman (2018) for details). One of the consequences of rejection of religion was the rejection of all unobservables. Empiricists like David Hume rejected all knowledge which was not based on observations and logic. He famously stated that: ““If we take in our hand any volume; of divinity or school metaphysics, for instance; let us ask, Does it contain any abstract reasoning concerning quantity or number? No. Does it contain any experimental reasoning concerning matter of fact and existence? No. Commit it then to the flames: for it can contain nothing but sophistry and illusion.” David Hume further realized that causality was not observable. This means that it is observable that event Y happened after event X, but it is not observable that Y happened due to X. The underlying mechanisms which connect X to Y are not observable. Current Article discusses the impact of changing causal structures on relationships and results of econometric analysis. it shows that conventional econometric analysis is devoid of causal chains which makes it impossible to get realistic results.\",\"PeriodicalId\":32692,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"International Econometric Review\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2020-06-08\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"1\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"International Econometric Review\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.33818/ier.687042\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"International Econometric Review","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.33818/ier.687042","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

摘要

基督教派系之间的激烈斗争和教会领袖之间的不道德行为导致了欧洲向世俗思想的过渡(详见Zaman(2018))。拒绝宗教的后果之一是拒绝所有不可观测的事物。像大卫·休谟这样的经验主义者拒绝接受一切不是基于观察和逻辑的知识。他曾说过一句著名的话:“如果我们手里拿着任何一本书,比如神性或学派形而上学的书,让我们问,它包含任何关于数量或数字的抽象推理吗?不包含任何关于事实和存在的实验推理吗?没有。那就把它付之一炬吧:因为它只包含诡辩和幻觉。”。”大卫·休谟进一步认识到因果关系是不可观察的。这意味着可以观察到事件Y发生在事件X之后,但不可观察到Y是由于X而发生的。将X连接到Y的潜在机制是不可观察的。本文讨论了因果结构变化对经济计量分析的关系和结果的影响。这表明,传统的计量经济学分析缺乏因果链,无法得到现实的结果。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Causality, Confounding, and Simpson’s Paradox
Bitter fighting among Christian factions and immoral behavior among Church leaders led to a transition to secular thought in Europe (see Zaman (2018) for details). One of the consequences of rejection of religion was the rejection of all unobservables. Empiricists like David Hume rejected all knowledge which was not based on observations and logic. He famously stated that: ““If we take in our hand any volume; of divinity or school metaphysics, for instance; let us ask, Does it contain any abstract reasoning concerning quantity or number? No. Does it contain any experimental reasoning concerning matter of fact and existence? No. Commit it then to the flames: for it can contain nothing but sophistry and illusion.” David Hume further realized that causality was not observable. This means that it is observable that event Y happened after event X, but it is not observable that Y happened due to X. The underlying mechanisms which connect X to Y are not observable. Current Article discusses the impact of changing causal structures on relationships and results of econometric analysis. it shows that conventional econometric analysis is devoid of causal chains which makes it impossible to get realistic results.
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
自引率
0.00%
发文量
6
审稿时长
15 weeks
×
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