Does X cause Y? An in-depth evidence review

cold-takes.com

26 points·lordgrenville··3 comments

> I guess my bottom line is that X does cause Y, because it intuitively seems like it would.

Yes. Judea Pearl argues that one cannot and shouldn't argue about causes and effects when not knowing what X and Y are, without a deep understanding of the nature of X and Y. And if it was so, then the author would be able to include observational studies into his analysis.

Moreover oftentimes there are no studies available except observational ones. A true experiment is a costly thing and sometimes it is plain impossible to conduct. If you have no abilities to reason about causes in this more general case, you a doomed.

If you want Certainty, and someone to tell you what to think, many social systems already exist to provide that. If you are distressed that the Enlightened summarize the Science and still cannot provide a simple proscription of Faith for you; perhaps those other systems will provide more comfort and assurance.

Or you can decide that only you can decide what is true for you, and the responsibility for making that decision cannot be deferred, transferred, or ignored. It is always going to be you.

"Think for yourself, no one else will do it for you."

Tldr: it's very hard to prove causality in humans without doing an actual experiment. Most studies are flawed, don't show anything except correlation, and could very likely be drawing incorrect conclusions.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com