,
3 tweets,
1 min read
Read on Twitter
1/3
In the interest of keeping this Twitter conversation as a platform for genuine learning, and saluting our Golden Rule: "One example outweighs ten debates", I strongly recommend that readers try to work out this toy example: It calls for analyzing a causal chain X-->Y-->Z
In the interest of keeping this Twitter conversation as a platform for genuine learning, and saluting our Golden Rule: "One example outweighs ten debates", I strongly recommend that readers try to work out this toy example: It calls for analyzing a causal chain X-->Y-->Z
2/n
in two frameworks: 1. DAGs, 2. Potential outcomes. It has two stages: (a) specify the model assumptions in both languages, and (b) decide if those assumptions have testable implications. The example is extremely important for
understanding the often-heard claim:
in two frameworks: 1. DAGs, 2. Potential outcomes. It has two stages: (a) specify the model assumptions in both languages, and (b) decide if those assumptions have testable implications. The example is extremely important for
understanding the often-heard claim:
3/3
"The two frameworks are "provenly equivalent"" and its counter-claim: "logical equivalence ain't computational equivalence." It is a great opportunity to engage in a fun example that most debaters have tried to avoid. Good luck.
#Bookofwhy
"The two frameworks are "provenly equivalent"" and its counter-claim: "logical equivalence ain't computational equivalence." It is a great opportunity to engage in a fun example that most debaters have tried to avoid. Good luck.
#Bookofwhy
