On the difference between econometrics and data science

20 Jan, 2021 at 22:42 | Posted in Statistics & Econometrics | 1 Comment

.

Causality in social sciences can never solely be a question of statistical inference. Causality entails more than predictability, and to really in depth explain social phenomena require theory. The analysis of variation can never in itself reveal how these variations are brought about. First when we are able to tie actions, processes or structures to the statistical relations detected, can we say that we are getting at relevant explanations of causation.

Most facts have many different, possible, alternative explanations, but we want to find the best of all contrastive (since all real explanation takes place relative to a set of alternatives) explanations. So which is the best explanation? Many scientists, influenced by statistical reasoning, think that the likeliest explanation is the best explanation. But the likelihood of x is not in itself a strong argument for thinking it explains y. I would rather argue that what makes one explanation better than another are things like aiming for and finding powerful, deep, causal, features and mechanisms that we have warranted and justified reasons to believe in. Statistical — especially the variety based on a Bayesian epistemology — reasoning generally has no room for these kinds of explanatory considerations. The only thing that matters is the probabilistic relation between evidence and hypothesis. That is also one of the main reasons I find abduction — inference to the best explanation — a better description and account of what constitute actual scientific reasoning and inferences.

Some statisticians and data scientists think that algorithmic formalisms somehow give them access to causality. That is simply not true. Assuming ‘convenient’ things like faithfulness or stability is not to give proofs. It’s to assume what has to be proven. Deductive-axiomatic methods used in statistics do no produce evidence for causal inferences. The real causality we are searching for is the one existing in the real world around us. If there is no warranted connection between axiomatically derived theorems and the real-world, well, then we haven’t really obtained the causation we are looking for.

1 Comment

  1. Amends Lars in advance …. I assume a deity and advance that theory forward regardless of the pit falls and failures, yet maintain the a priori due to my personal affiliation and its effects on my self worth, because removing that corner stone would be too painful.

    It must be nice for some to completely white was all of human history into oblivion so some can pound a round peg into a square hole because it satisfies a proof – sigh.

    Personally I would rather be proven wrong and mature as a human through that process.


Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.

Blog at WordPress.com.
Entries and comments feeds.