[ Kevin D. Hoover (2011), “Counterfactuals and causal structure”, in P. Illari et al. (eds.)(2011), Causality in the Sciences (Oxford University Press), pp. 338-360. ]
16.1 Introduction
16.2 Woodward’s manipulation account
16.3 The structural account
16.3.1 Simon on causal order
16.3.2 Modularity and difference-making
16.3.3 Counterfactual analysis
16.4 Counterfactuals and policy analysis
16.4.1 Impostor counterfactuals
16.4.2 An illustration from monetary economics
16.4.3 Internal and external validity
16.4.4 Epistemic opportunism
16.1 Introduction
338
인과성은 반-사실적 조건문에 관한 분석과 밀접히 관련됨.
338-339
루이스
우드워드도 원인을 반-사실적으로 정의함.
카트라이트는 이를 공격함
339
우드워드의 설명은 Peter Spirtes, Clark Glymour and Richard Scheines (2001) and Judea Pearl (2000)에서 도출함
16.2 Woodward’s manipulation account
340-341
우드워드의 설명은 루이스의 설명과 근본적으로 다름
(DC) A necessary and sufficient condition for X to be a direct cause of Y with respect to some variable set V is that there be a possible intervention on X that will change Y (or the probability distribution of Y) when all other variables in V besides X and Y are held fixed at some value by interventions. (Woodward 2003, p. 55)
Woodward (2003, p. 98) intervention variable (I) for a variable X with respect to a variable Y은 네 가지 기준
1. I causes X;
2. I acts as a switch so that when it takes the right values it can eliminate the effect of all other variables in determining X;
3. any causal path from I to Y goes through X;
4. I is independent of any variable Z that causes Y otherwise than through X.
341
우드워드의 직접적 인과 정의에서 반-사실성의 역할은 두 가지
16.3 The structural account
343
구조적 설명은 Spirtes et al과 Pearl의 그래프-이론적 분석과 관련됨.
16.3.1 Simon on causal order
16.3.2 Modularity and difference-making
16.3.3 Counterfactual analysis
16.4 Counterfactuals and policy analysis
16.4.1 Impostor counterfactuals
16.4.2 An illustration from monetary economics
353-354
structural vector autoregressions
354
루카스 비판
357
경제학 등에서의 인과적 지식에 대한 카트라이트의 회의주의
16.4.3 Internal and external validity
16.4.4 Epistemic opportunism
(2023.04.29.)
