| Tweetovi |
|
Judea Pearl
@yudapearl
|
5 h |
|
No! Jihadi music is Jihadi music. "From the river..." is a
death chant to human beings living in the neighborhood. Not to mention the students whose meeting was silenced by the saintly "simple chant".
|
||
|
||
|
|
Judea Pearl
@yudapearl
|
7 h |
|
Cultures void of history claim "indigenous is a silly notion" Others embrace it to heighten creativity.
|
||
|
|
||
|
|
Judea Pearl
@yudapearl
|
10 h |
|
I've heard this Jihadi music since I was 3 yrs old. What's new is the participation of gullible American students. We, academics, are partly responsible, by begging protection from anti-semitism instead of demanding a stop to anti-Zionism - the more lethal of the two racist cults twitter.com/DKedmey/status…
|
||
|
|
||
|
|
Judea Pearl
@yudapearl
|
18 h |
|
plausibility of the claims? (3.4) What would I do with it, once I agree with the plausibility? (3.5) Does it have any testable implications? (3.6) Unlike my semi-revitalized colleagues, I will begin critiquing specific models only when satisfied with (3.1)-(3.5). #Bookofwhy
|
||
|
|
||
|
|
Judea Pearl
@yudapearl
|
18 h |
|
I do not give up and claim (as did Kruskal and Lord) that the solution lies beyond statistics. Rather, I am asking: (3.1) What information is needed for a solution? (3.2) What notation would this information be cast in? (3.3) Would I be able to read this notation and judge the twitter.com/yudapearl/stat…
|
||
|
|
||
|
|
Judea Pearl
@yudapearl
|
19 h |
|
(2) Both intuitions are causal, hence, to reconcile the apparent clash between them we need a causal language; statistics alone won’t do. A fully revitalized mainstreamer goes further: (3) accepting that every causal assertions must invoke untested causal assumptions I do not
|
||
|
|
||
|
|
Judea Pearl
@yudapearl
|
19 h |
|
The last question is answered fairly well in the conclusion section of the Lord Paradox posting ucla.in/2YZjVFL.
A revitalized mainstreamer recognizes that (1) The two clashing intuitions are deeply entrenched in statistical thinking and should not be brushed off , and pic.twitter.com/W1djzWfUSa
|
||
|
|
||
|
|
Judea Pearl
@yudapearl
|
3. velj |
|
I would like to believe that defenders of mainstream listen to me, not because I have an authority in any subject, but because my arguments for revitalizing mainstream make good sense and science would benefit from the
revitalizatioin. #Bookofwhy
|
||
|
|
||
|
|
Judea Pearl
@yudapearl
|
3. velj |
|
, equally important question: "Suppose it was right, what would we do with it?". Attending to this question is pre-requisite to resolving causal problems such as Lord's Paradox. (or, more generally: should we adjust for base-line conditions?) #Bookofwhy
|
||
|
|
||
|
|
Judea Pearl
@yudapearl
|
3. velj |
|
Any disdain or conspiratorial undertones on my side are
imaginary at best. In fact, as I articulate here:
ucla.in/2v72QK5 I respectfully invite mainstreamers to join me in the effort, by temporarily halting the question "What if the model was wrong?" and
attend to another twitter.com/ArcusCoTangens…
|
||
|
|
||
|
|
Judea Pearl
@yudapearl
|
3. velj |
|
Perhaps you can explain "the situation" w/o DAGs. But I have not seen an explanation of why we should come to a different decision, with the same data, depending on the story. #Bookofwhy
|
||
|
|
||
|
|
Judea Pearl
@yudapearl
|
3. velj |
|
First, the data show that initial weight is correlated with diet. Second it stands to reason that over-weight students would choose a dining room differently than under-weight. #Bookofwhy
|
||
|
|
||
|
|
Judea Pearl
@yudapearl
|
3. velj |
|
The question was: what information do we need to decide correctly. This can be answered independently of the question "do we have this information?" or "do we have sufficient evidence to support the needed information?"
Separating tasks does not mean neglecting tasks #Bookofwhy
|
||
|
|
||
|
|
Judea Pearl
@yudapearl
|
3. velj |
|
Correcting a link to the Lord Paradox posting. The correct link is causality.cs.ucla.edu/blog/index.php…
and it should go to: Lord Paradox and the Power of Causal Thinking. (Thanks to Stephen Leroy for noting). #Bookofwhy
|
||
|
|
||
|
|
Judea Pearl
@yudapearl
|
3. velj |
|
2/ sufficient for resolving the paradox, namely, for deciding if X increases Y for a person with unknown color. I would be happy to respond to anyone who thinks this statement is in some way incomplete. #Bookofwhy
|
||
|
|
||
|
|
Judea Pearl
@yudapearl
|
3. velj |
|
1/ About a dozen or so readers have offered creative proposals for resolving Simpson's paradox in the X,Y,Color
scatter plot example. I can't comments on each of the proposals, but I would beg the discussants to focus on my humble proposal: A causal model is both necessary and twitter.com/agpatriota/sta…
|
||
|
|
||
|
|
Judea Pearl
@yudapearl
|
3. velj |
|
What explanation is "equivalent" to DAGs which does not use DAGs? perhaps PO? or "exchangeability"? or "higher resolution?" or "context-sensitive"? I am yet to see one. #Bookofwhy
|
||
|
|
||
|
|
Judea Pearl
@yudapearl
|
3. velj |
|
Why do you say "Causal models are useful" instead of "are necessary"? "Useful" is what economists use to justify not using (see ucla.in/36EoNzO). When we have same data demanding two different conclusions depending on the model, we say "necessary" #Bookofwhy
|
||
|
|
||
|
|
Judea Pearl
@yudapearl
|
3. velj |
|
Explanations are man-made, but we are facing a decision that has true/false value: Will Joe gain a higher Y with more X ? Philosophy aside; do we or dont we have enough information in the scatter plot to decide correctly? #Bookofwhy
|
||
|
|
||
|
|
Judea Pearl
@yudapearl
|
3. velj |
|
I would say: It is impossible to "deal with Simpson's Paradox" without a causal model, and it is impossible to specify a causal model in the language of probability distributions, however intricate. See ucla.in/2Jfl2VS
which you've cited but not taken seriously.#Bookofwhy
|
||
|
|
||