Russo Epsa2009 Variation
•
0 likes•812 views
The document discusses methodological and evidential pluralism in causal modeling and argues that despite pluralism in methods and evidence, there is a single underlying rationale of variation. Specifically: 1) While causal modeling uses various methods and evidence, it is guided by a single rationale when reasoning about cause-effect relationships - the rationale of variation. 2) Variation underlies model building and testing and serves as a precondition to notions like regularity and invariance. 3) Regularity and invariance play constrained roles by ruling out accidental variations and granting causal interpretation, but the core rationale is variation.
Report
Share
Report
Share
![Overview ,[object Object],[object Object],[object Object],[object Object],[object Object],[object Object],[object Object],[object Object],[object Object],[object Object],[object Object]]()
Recommended
Venezia cs
This document discusses models, agents, and levels of abstraction in modeling. It addresses several questions, including what constitutes a model, where causality is located, and who creates models and for what purpose. The method of levels of abstraction is presented as a useful approach to clarify assumptions and enhance rigor when discussing conceptual problems. Models can be viewed as maps or mediators that are useful for specific purposes rather than absolutely true. The role of the agent or modeler is also explored, noting they shape models through their expertise and goals.
Health interventions: what evidence?
This document discusses evidential pluralism in evaluating health interventions. It argues that establishing causality requires evidence of both difference-making and mechanisms. RCTs are not necessarily better than all other evidence; mechanistic evidence is also important. A causal claim is strengthened when there is integrated evidence from different sources, such as studies showing a cause makes a difference combined with an understanding of the linking biological mechanism. The document provides categories for assessing the quality and integration of evidence from various methods regarding mechanisms and difference-making. The overall approach is not a rigid hierarchy but a more flexible evaluation of all available sources of evidence.
Russo unam-2
The document discusses different modes of explanation for social phenomena, including causal modeling. Causal models establish associations and causal relationships between variables using statistical methods and background knowledge. Valid causal models explain social phenomena by identifying entities, activities, and their organization in mechanisms responsible for the phenomena of interest.
Russo urbino presentazione
This document provides an overview of Federica Russo's work on probability and causality in the social sciences. It discusses her perspectives on the syntax and semantics of probability, and how she views probability from an epistemic interpretation. It also briefly summarizes some of her previous arguments including how she sees probability as being Janus-faced between frequency-driven and credence-driven views. The document suggests some new ideas Russo is developing around dispersion, variation, and distinguishing between statistical individuals and populations versus observed individuals. It concludes by emphasizing the useful interactions between probability theory, population science, and philosophy in constructing knowledge.
The concept of variation in causal discovery
This document discusses the concept of variation in causal discovery and reasoning. It argues that causal discovery relies on the analysis of differences and variations. There are three main types of causal reasoning - ordinary, experimental, and statistical - but they all depend on the evaluation of variations, whether comparing counterfactual scenarios, manipulating putative causes, or studying associations across different levels of exposure. The foundations of this variational approach are traced back to thinkers like Mill and Durkheim, who emphasized the importance of comparing instances where phenomena do and do not occur to establish causal relations. Regularities alone are not sufficient for causal learning; we need variations to detect the factors that make a difference.
Russo rotterdam2012
This document discusses causal models and their use in social science research. It covers several key topics:
1) Causal models are used to explain social phenomena by modeling causal mechanisms. They involve defining variables, structuring relationships, and testing models.
2) Causal models differ from systemic models in their treatment of exogeneity and covariate sufficiency. Multi-level models address social hierarchies by including individual and group level variables.
3) Mixed mechanism models recognize that multiple social, economic, and psychological factors can interact causally. Theoretical plausibility of relationships is important.
4) Causal relationships in social models may exhibit regularities across time or populations, though testing invariance poses challenges around reference
San sebastian mechanisms
This document provides an overview of mechanisms in the sciences. It discusses prominent definitions of mechanisms, why mechanisms are important in sciences beyond physics, examples of mechanisms studied in biology and social science, what mechanisms are used for in explanation, evidence of mechanisms, the relationship between mechanisms and reasoning, pluralism vs monism in conceptualizing mechanisms, and the practical scientific use of mechanisms. The document serves as a field guide to the key concepts and debates around mechanisms across different domains of science.
Russo unam-1
This document discusses the intersection of medicine and the philosophy of science. It argues that medicine should be broadly defined to include clinical practice, public health, epidemiology, and various medical theories and approaches. The philosophy of science encompasses analytic philosophy, history and philosophy of science, sociology of science, and critical approaches. The document examines philosophical questions in medicine around causation, explanation of health and disease, different types of evidence, and how qualitative and quantitative data can be integrated. It proposes studying causation in medicine through a "causal mosaic" that maps out causal theories, scientific and philosophical challenges, and accounts of causation, mechanisms, processes and other concepts.
Recommended
Venezia cs
This document discusses models, agents, and levels of abstraction in modeling. It addresses several questions, including what constitutes a model, where causality is located, and who creates models and for what purpose. The method of levels of abstraction is presented as a useful approach to clarify assumptions and enhance rigor when discussing conceptual problems. Models can be viewed as maps or mediators that are useful for specific purposes rather than absolutely true. The role of the agent or modeler is also explored, noting they shape models through their expertise and goals.
Health interventions: what evidence?
This document discusses evidential pluralism in evaluating health interventions. It argues that establishing causality requires evidence of both difference-making and mechanisms. RCTs are not necessarily better than all other evidence; mechanistic evidence is also important. A causal claim is strengthened when there is integrated evidence from different sources, such as studies showing a cause makes a difference combined with an understanding of the linking biological mechanism. The document provides categories for assessing the quality and integration of evidence from various methods regarding mechanisms and difference-making. The overall approach is not a rigid hierarchy but a more flexible evaluation of all available sources of evidence.
Russo unam-2
The document discusses different modes of explanation for social phenomena, including causal modeling. Causal models establish associations and causal relationships between variables using statistical methods and background knowledge. Valid causal models explain social phenomena by identifying entities, activities, and their organization in mechanisms responsible for the phenomena of interest.
Russo urbino presentazione
This document provides an overview of Federica Russo's work on probability and causality in the social sciences. It discusses her perspectives on the syntax and semantics of probability, and how she views probability from an epistemic interpretation. It also briefly summarizes some of her previous arguments including how she sees probability as being Janus-faced between frequency-driven and credence-driven views. The document suggests some new ideas Russo is developing around dispersion, variation, and distinguishing between statistical individuals and populations versus observed individuals. It concludes by emphasizing the useful interactions between probability theory, population science, and philosophy in constructing knowledge.
The concept of variation in causal discovery
This document discusses the concept of variation in causal discovery and reasoning. It argues that causal discovery relies on the analysis of differences and variations. There are three main types of causal reasoning - ordinary, experimental, and statistical - but they all depend on the evaluation of variations, whether comparing counterfactual scenarios, manipulating putative causes, or studying associations across different levels of exposure. The foundations of this variational approach are traced back to thinkers like Mill and Durkheim, who emphasized the importance of comparing instances where phenomena do and do not occur to establish causal relations. Regularities alone are not sufficient for causal learning; we need variations to detect the factors that make a difference.
Russo rotterdam2012
This document discusses causal models and their use in social science research. It covers several key topics:
1) Causal models are used to explain social phenomena by modeling causal mechanisms. They involve defining variables, structuring relationships, and testing models.
2) Causal models differ from systemic models in their treatment of exogeneity and covariate sufficiency. Multi-level models address social hierarchies by including individual and group level variables.
3) Mixed mechanism models recognize that multiple social, economic, and psychological factors can interact causally. Theoretical plausibility of relationships is important.
4) Causal relationships in social models may exhibit regularities across time or populations, though testing invariance poses challenges around reference
San sebastian mechanisms
This document provides an overview of mechanisms in the sciences. It discusses prominent definitions of mechanisms, why mechanisms are important in sciences beyond physics, examples of mechanisms studied in biology and social science, what mechanisms are used for in explanation, evidence of mechanisms, the relationship between mechanisms and reasoning, pluralism vs monism in conceptualizing mechanisms, and the practical scientific use of mechanisms. The document serves as a field guide to the key concepts and debates around mechanisms across different domains of science.
Russo unam-1
This document discusses the intersection of medicine and the philosophy of science. It argues that medicine should be broadly defined to include clinical practice, public health, epidemiology, and various medical theories and approaches. The philosophy of science encompasses analytic philosophy, history and philosophy of science, sociology of science, and critical approaches. The document examines philosophical questions in medicine around causation, explanation of health and disease, different types of evidence, and how qualitative and quantitative data can be integrated. It proposes studying causation in medicine through a "causal mosaic" that maps out causal theories, scientific and philosophical challenges, and accounts of causation, mechanisms, processes and other concepts.
The mosaic of causal theory
The document discusses causal pluralism and proposes a "causal mosaic" approach to causality. It argues that causality cannot be reduced to a single concept, but rather different concepts are needed to analyze causality depending on the scientific challenge or philosophical question. The causal mosaic treats each causal concept as a "tile" that addresses a specific problem and relates to neighboring concepts. It also applies this framework to the field of "exposomics", which aims to understand links between environmental exposures and disease by measuring biomarkers at different stages. Key concepts in the causal mosaic for exposomics include processes, difference-making, mechanisms, production-information, levels of causation, and capacities.
Russo ioe_nov12
This document discusses the relationship between empirical educational research and philosophy of education. It argues that empirical research should pay more attention to philosophy and look into normative processes. Multilevel modeling is presented as a quantitative method used in educational research to model hierarchical structures like students within classrooms. However, multilevel models still require accompanying substantive theories to fully explain relationships between levels. Recent work is discussed that aims to provide a substantive theory featuring different levels of analysis beyond just statistics. This would help empirical research integrate qualitative insights and better explain socially constituted behaviors.
Big data and the question of objectivity
Presentation of work in progress at conference on big data in social science at the University of Kent, June 2017
Information transmission and the mosaic of causal theory
Information transmission and the mosaic of causal theoryUniversity of Amsterdam and University College London
Causality is a central notion in the sciences. It is at the core of a number of epistemic practices such as explanation, prediction, or reasoning. The recognition of a plurality of practices calls, in turn, for a pluralistic approach to causality. In the ‘mosaic’ approach, as developed by Illari and Russo (2014), we need to select the causal account that best fits the practice at hand, and in the specific context. For instance, the concept of (causal) mechanism helps with explanatory practices in fields such as biology or neuroscience. Or, the concept of (causal) process helps with tracing ‘world-line’ trajectories in physics contexts or in social science. While no single notion of causality can simultaneously meet the requirements for a good explanation, prediction, or reasoning across different contexts and practices, a pluralistic approach towards the epistemology of causality seems to be the most plausible and attractive solution.
Info biomark
This document discusses the emerging field of exposomics, which aims to better understand how environmental exposures are linked to disease development at the molecular level. It notes that traditional accounts of causality focused on physical processes and mechanisms fail to fully capture this linking. The document argues that an informational approach may help address this by providing a general way to describe reality and track the transmission of biological information via biomarkers across different levels. Conceptualizing mechanisms as information channels could help reconcile this informational thinking with existing work. Understanding causality in terms of the flow of information may help interpret molecular data and reconstruct plausible links between various exposure and disease factors.
Causality Triangle Presentation
This document discusses different perspectives on causality in metaphysics, epistemology, and methodology. It argues that variation, not invariance or regularity, is the key concept underlying causality. Causal assumptions about the context, hypotheses, and models are necessary to guarantee a causal interpretation from statistical analyses. An example analysis of the relationship between health and wealth illustrates how causal assumptions guided the interpretation.
Productive causality in technoscientific research
Productive causality in technoscientific researchUniversity of Amsterdam and University College London
Presentation at Workshop on Philosophy of Technology and Philosophy of Science, University of Twente, NetherlandsDesigns in Qualitative Research
Qualitative research methods were developed in the social sciences to enable researchers to study social and cultural phenomena.
Pitt Lunchtime Sem Jan09
This document discusses the rationale of causality in causal modeling, specifically focusing on the notion of measuring variations. It argues that measuring variations is the principle that guides causal reasoning in causal modeling based on empirical, methodological and philosophical arguments. The rationale of causality in causal modeling centers around identifying and interpreting variations in variables, which is supported by foundational thinkers like Mill, Durkheim, and Quetelet who employed comparative and concomitant variation methods. Objections regarding regularity and invariance are addressed, and methodological consequences for different types of variations are explored.
The mosaic of causal theory
The document discusses causal pluralism and proposes a "causal mosaic" approach to conceptualizing causality. It summarizes that:
1) Analyses of scientific practices report a plurality of concepts, meanings, sources of evidence, and methods related to causality across domains.
2) A "causal mosaic" can make philosophical sense of this pluralism by arranging "tiles" representing causal concepts according to the philosophical questions and scientific problems they address.
3) Manipulationism, the view that causality means invariance under intervention, is one tile in the mosaic that applies primarily to methodology and experimental problems rather than conceptual or metaphysical questions.
Venezia phil
This document discusses causality and causal modelling in the social sciences. It addresses 5 philosophical questions about causality and 5 scientific problems in establishing causation. Causality is a complex concept that cannot be reduced to a single definition, and different causal methods use concepts like statistical variations, counterfactuals, and mechanisms to reason about causes. Causal models are used to represent causal relationships in systems and explain phenomena through relevant causal factors. Epistemologically, causal discovery relies on reasoning about variations, differences, and how changing circumstances relate to changes in outcomes.
Causality Triangle March05 Presentation
Two levels of causation are needed to reconcile causal claims made at the population level versus the individual level.
At the population level, causal relationships are represented by joint probability distributions. At the individual level, causal relationships are realizations of those joint probabilities.
The "Connecting Principle" provides a way to relate the two levels by stating that the likelihood of an individual causal claim increases proportionally with the strength of the population-level causal relationship, as represented by the joint probability distributions. While population-level causation is epistemologically fundamental, individual causation remains ontologically fundamental.
Venezia management
This document discusses approaches to causality in economics and econometrics. It distinguishes between associational models, which establish statistical associations, and causal models, which aim to establish causal relations. Causal models require both statistical information about dependencies from data as well as causal information about mechanisms. A causal interpretation depends on the validity of the entire model, including whether the posited mechanisms provide a good explanation for the observed statistical dependencies. The document advocates an evidential pluralism where multiple lines of evidence, including evidence of difference-making through statistical analysis and evidence of mechanisms, are needed to make valid causal claims.
Are causal relations invariant or regular? Or both
Are causal relations invariant or regular? Or bothUniversity of Amsterdam and University College London
Causal relations in social science may be both invariant and regular.
Invariance refers to stability of causal relationships across changes in environment or population. Causal modeling tests for invariance by examining whether parameter values and causal structures remain stable when partitioning data into different contexts.
Regularity relates to robust dependencies between variables that form explanatory patterns. Philosophers disagree on whether regularity is an epistemological or metaphysical feature of causation. In causal modeling, regularity may motivate analysis by establishing phenomena to be explained, and also factor into testing by requiring repetition of patterns.
Both invariance and regularity play roles in assessing causal relationships through quantitative modeling, but their precise relationship when testing social scientific causal claimsEmpirical Generalisations Kent Nov07
The document discusses whether there are laws in social science. It analyzes the concept of empirical generalizations, which some argue are the closest analog to laws. Empirical generalizations are causal claims that state an invariant relationship established through structural modeling of observational data. However, defining empirical generalizations as invariant relationships opens up difficulties in applying counterfactual theories of causation to observational social science data, where interventions cannot be performed. The debate remains open on what constitutes an empirical generalization or law in social science.
Kent Phil Dept March06
1. The document discusses the rationale of causality, specifically in social sciences, and argues that measuring variations is the key concept.
2. It examines empirical and methodological arguments from thinkers like Mill and Durkheim that causal reasoning relies on evaluating variations in circumstances and outcomes.
3. The philosophical literature on causality from Suppes, Woodward, and others also centers on variations, such as changes in probabilities or responses to interventions.
The mosaic of causal theory
The document discusses causal pluralism and proposes a "causal mosaic" approach to causal theory. It argues that causality cannot be reduced to a single concept but rather is made up of multiple concepts. These concepts address different scientific and philosophical problems and form a network or "mosaic" where each concept plays a specific role. The causal mosaic is dynamic and depends on scientific and philosophical perspectives. The document advocates a pluralistic approach that uses examples and counterexamples to build connections between concepts rather than seeking a single winning account of causation.
Evidence in the social sciences - Series of lectures on causal modelling in t...
Evidence in the social sciences - Series of lectures on causal modelling in t...University of Amsterdam and University College London
This document discusses evidence for causal claims in the social sciences. It argues that establishing causation requires multiple types of evidence, including evidence that a cause makes a difference to an effect and evidence about the underlying mechanisms by which the cause produces the effect. Regarding mechanisms, the document reviews debates about how to define mechanisms and proposes that mechanisms in social science are primarily epistemic - they are statistically modeled and have explanatory power even if they do not correspond to physically existing entities. The document also discusses how causal modeling represents mechanisms through recursive decomposition of probabilistic relationships, and how the validity of these models determines whether correlations reflect causal relationships.Scientific problems and philosophical questions about causality. Why we need ...
Scientific problems and philosophical questions about causality. Why we need ...University of Amsterdam and University College London
This document discusses different approaches to analyzing causality and the need for a pluralistic view of causation. It addresses conceptual analysis of causality based on intuitions and analysis of scientific practice based on descriptive and normative examination of fields like medicine and social science. It advocates causal pluralism, the idea that causation cannot be reduced to a single concept and must be analyzed using multiple concepts. It also discusses "fragmenting" causal theory by examining different philosophical questions about causation and different scientific problems of causation. Finally, it uses data-driven health sciences as a case study, examining how concepts like mechanisms, correlations, and biomarkers fit into analyzing causation in this context.Causal mosaics - Series of lectures on causal modelling in the social sciences
Causal mosaics - Series of lectures on causal modelling in the social sciencesUniversity of Amsterdam and University College London
This document discusses causal pluralism and the idea of a "causal mosaic" approach to understanding causality. It proposes that causality involves multiple concepts or "tiles" that can be arranged differently depending on the scientific or philosophical question. These tiles include concepts like probabilistic causality, counterfactuals, mechanisms, and manipulation. The causal mosaic approach aims to unify these fragments by considering how each tile addresses scientific challenges or philosophical questions. It also suggests this leads to a more flexible methodology for conceptual analysis in philosophy of causality compared to traditional accounts.The concept of variation in causal discovery
This document discusses the concept of variation in causal discovery. It argues that causal reasoning relies on the identification of differences or variations, and that establishing causes requires observing how changing factors affect outcomes. The document outlines three types of causal reasoning - ordinary, experimental, and statistical - and explains how each searches for variations. It discusses philosophers John Stuart Mill and Emile Durkheim's views on the importance of variations and differences in causal analysis. The key point is that causal discovery fundamentally involves reasoning about variations in order to identify putative causes and explain phenomena.
Causal assessment and the question of stability
Causal assessment and the question of stabilityUniversity of Amsterdam and University College London
The document discusses causal assessment and the concept of stability. It examines how causal modeling involves testing for invariance across changes in the environment or interventions. Specifically, it looks at how causal relationships are considered stable if the parameters and causal structure remain the same when populations are partitioned in different ways, such as by time period, gender, age, etc. The document also explores how invariance has been extended as a concept because examining stability of regular associations between variables is central to determining causation.More Related Content
What's hot
The mosaic of causal theory
The document discusses causal pluralism and proposes a "causal mosaic" approach to causality. It argues that causality cannot be reduced to a single concept, but rather different concepts are needed to analyze causality depending on the scientific challenge or philosophical question. The causal mosaic treats each causal concept as a "tile" that addresses a specific problem and relates to neighboring concepts. It also applies this framework to the field of "exposomics", which aims to understand links between environmental exposures and disease by measuring biomarkers at different stages. Key concepts in the causal mosaic for exposomics include processes, difference-making, mechanisms, production-information, levels of causation, and capacities.
Russo ioe_nov12
This document discusses the relationship between empirical educational research and philosophy of education. It argues that empirical research should pay more attention to philosophy and look into normative processes. Multilevel modeling is presented as a quantitative method used in educational research to model hierarchical structures like students within classrooms. However, multilevel models still require accompanying substantive theories to fully explain relationships between levels. Recent work is discussed that aims to provide a substantive theory featuring different levels of analysis beyond just statistics. This would help empirical research integrate qualitative insights and better explain socially constituted behaviors.
Big data and the question of objectivity
Presentation of work in progress at conference on big data in social science at the University of Kent, June 2017
Information transmission and the mosaic of causal theory
Information transmission and the mosaic of causal theoryUniversity of Amsterdam and University College London
Causality is a central notion in the sciences. It is at the core of a number of epistemic practices such as explanation, prediction, or reasoning. The recognition of a plurality of practices calls, in turn, for a pluralistic approach to causality. In the ‘mosaic’ approach, as developed by Illari and Russo (2014), we need to select the causal account that best fits the practice at hand, and in the specific context. For instance, the concept of (causal) mechanism helps with explanatory practices in fields such as biology or neuroscience. Or, the concept of (causal) process helps with tracing ‘world-line’ trajectories in physics contexts or in social science. While no single notion of causality can simultaneously meet the requirements for a good explanation, prediction, or reasoning across different contexts and practices, a pluralistic approach towards the epistemology of causality seems to be the most plausible and attractive solution.
Info biomark
This document discusses the emerging field of exposomics, which aims to better understand how environmental exposures are linked to disease development at the molecular level. It notes that traditional accounts of causality focused on physical processes and mechanisms fail to fully capture this linking. The document argues that an informational approach may help address this by providing a general way to describe reality and track the transmission of biological information via biomarkers across different levels. Conceptualizing mechanisms as information channels could help reconcile this informational thinking with existing work. Understanding causality in terms of the flow of information may help interpret molecular data and reconstruct plausible links between various exposure and disease factors.
Causality Triangle Presentation
This document discusses different perspectives on causality in metaphysics, epistemology, and methodology. It argues that variation, not invariance or regularity, is the key concept underlying causality. Causal assumptions about the context, hypotheses, and models are necessary to guarantee a causal interpretation from statistical analyses. An example analysis of the relationship between health and wealth illustrates how causal assumptions guided the interpretation.
Productive causality in technoscientific research
Productive causality in technoscientific researchUniversity of Amsterdam and University College London
Presentation at Workshop on Philosophy of Technology and Philosophy of Science, University of Twente, NetherlandsDesigns in Qualitative Research
Qualitative research methods were developed in the social sciences to enable researchers to study social and cultural phenomena.
Pitt Lunchtime Sem Jan09
This document discusses the rationale of causality in causal modeling, specifically focusing on the notion of measuring variations. It argues that measuring variations is the principle that guides causal reasoning in causal modeling based on empirical, methodological and philosophical arguments. The rationale of causality in causal modeling centers around identifying and interpreting variations in variables, which is supported by foundational thinkers like Mill, Durkheim, and Quetelet who employed comparative and concomitant variation methods. Objections regarding regularity and invariance are addressed, and methodological consequences for different types of variations are explored.
The mosaic of causal theory
The document discusses causal pluralism and proposes a "causal mosaic" approach to conceptualizing causality. It summarizes that:
1) Analyses of scientific practices report a plurality of concepts, meanings, sources of evidence, and methods related to causality across domains.
2) A "causal mosaic" can make philosophical sense of this pluralism by arranging "tiles" representing causal concepts according to the philosophical questions and scientific problems they address.
3) Manipulationism, the view that causality means invariance under intervention, is one tile in the mosaic that applies primarily to methodology and experimental problems rather than conceptual or metaphysical questions.
Venezia phil
This document discusses causality and causal modelling in the social sciences. It addresses 5 philosophical questions about causality and 5 scientific problems in establishing causation. Causality is a complex concept that cannot be reduced to a single definition, and different causal methods use concepts like statistical variations, counterfactuals, and mechanisms to reason about causes. Causal models are used to represent causal relationships in systems and explain phenomena through relevant causal factors. Epistemologically, causal discovery relies on reasoning about variations, differences, and how changing circumstances relate to changes in outcomes.
Causality Triangle March05 Presentation
Two levels of causation are needed to reconcile causal claims made at the population level versus the individual level.
At the population level, causal relationships are represented by joint probability distributions. At the individual level, causal relationships are realizations of those joint probabilities.
The "Connecting Principle" provides a way to relate the two levels by stating that the likelihood of an individual causal claim increases proportionally with the strength of the population-level causal relationship, as represented by the joint probability distributions. While population-level causation is epistemologically fundamental, individual causation remains ontologically fundamental.
Venezia management
This document discusses approaches to causality in economics and econometrics. It distinguishes between associational models, which establish statistical associations, and causal models, which aim to establish causal relations. Causal models require both statistical information about dependencies from data as well as causal information about mechanisms. A causal interpretation depends on the validity of the entire model, including whether the posited mechanisms provide a good explanation for the observed statistical dependencies. The document advocates an evidential pluralism where multiple lines of evidence, including evidence of difference-making through statistical analysis and evidence of mechanisms, are needed to make valid causal claims.
Are causal relations invariant or regular? Or both
Are causal relations invariant or regular? Or bothUniversity of Amsterdam and University College London
Causal relations in social science may be both invariant and regular.
Invariance refers to stability of causal relationships across changes in environment or population. Causal modeling tests for invariance by examining whether parameter values and causal structures remain stable when partitioning data into different contexts.
Regularity relates to robust dependencies between variables that form explanatory patterns. Philosophers disagree on whether regularity is an epistemological or metaphysical feature of causation. In causal modeling, regularity may motivate analysis by establishing phenomena to be explained, and also factor into testing by requiring repetition of patterns.
Both invariance and regularity play roles in assessing causal relationships through quantitative modeling, but their precise relationship when testing social scientific causal claimsEmpirical Generalisations Kent Nov07
The document discusses whether there are laws in social science. It analyzes the concept of empirical generalizations, which some argue are the closest analog to laws. Empirical generalizations are causal claims that state an invariant relationship established through structural modeling of observational data. However, defining empirical generalizations as invariant relationships opens up difficulties in applying counterfactual theories of causation to observational social science data, where interventions cannot be performed. The debate remains open on what constitutes an empirical generalization or law in social science.
Kent Phil Dept March06
1. The document discusses the rationale of causality, specifically in social sciences, and argues that measuring variations is the key concept.
2. It examines empirical and methodological arguments from thinkers like Mill and Durkheim that causal reasoning relies on evaluating variations in circumstances and outcomes.
3. The philosophical literature on causality from Suppes, Woodward, and others also centers on variations, such as changes in probabilities or responses to interventions.
The mosaic of causal theory
The document discusses causal pluralism and proposes a "causal mosaic" approach to causal theory. It argues that causality cannot be reduced to a single concept but rather is made up of multiple concepts. These concepts address different scientific and philosophical problems and form a network or "mosaic" where each concept plays a specific role. The causal mosaic is dynamic and depends on scientific and philosophical perspectives. The document advocates a pluralistic approach that uses examples and counterexamples to build connections between concepts rather than seeking a single winning account of causation.
Evidence in the social sciences - Series of lectures on causal modelling in t...
Evidence in the social sciences - Series of lectures on causal modelling in t...University of Amsterdam and University College London
This document discusses evidence for causal claims in the social sciences. It argues that establishing causation requires multiple types of evidence, including evidence that a cause makes a difference to an effect and evidence about the underlying mechanisms by which the cause produces the effect. Regarding mechanisms, the document reviews debates about how to define mechanisms and proposes that mechanisms in social science are primarily epistemic - they are statistically modeled and have explanatory power even if they do not correspond to physically existing entities. The document also discusses how causal modeling represents mechanisms through recursive decomposition of probabilistic relationships, and how the validity of these models determines whether correlations reflect causal relationships.Scientific problems and philosophical questions about causality. Why we need ...
Scientific problems and philosophical questions about causality. Why we need ...University of Amsterdam and University College London
This document discusses different approaches to analyzing causality and the need for a pluralistic view of causation. It addresses conceptual analysis of causality based on intuitions and analysis of scientific practice based on descriptive and normative examination of fields like medicine and social science. It advocates causal pluralism, the idea that causation cannot be reduced to a single concept and must be analyzed using multiple concepts. It also discusses "fragmenting" causal theory by examining different philosophical questions about causation and different scientific problems of causation. Finally, it uses data-driven health sciences as a case study, examining how concepts like mechanisms, correlations, and biomarkers fit into analyzing causation in this context.Causal mosaics - Series of lectures on causal modelling in the social sciences
Causal mosaics - Series of lectures on causal modelling in the social sciencesUniversity of Amsterdam and University College London
This document discusses causal pluralism and the idea of a "causal mosaic" approach to understanding causality. It proposes that causality involves multiple concepts or "tiles" that can be arranged differently depending on the scientific or philosophical question. These tiles include concepts like probabilistic causality, counterfactuals, mechanisms, and manipulation. The causal mosaic approach aims to unify these fragments by considering how each tile addresses scientific challenges or philosophical questions. It also suggests this leads to a more flexible methodology for conceptual analysis in philosophy of causality compared to traditional accounts.What's hot (20)
Information transmission and the mosaic of causal theory
Information transmission and the mosaic of causal theory
Are causal relations invariant or regular? Or both
Are causal relations invariant or regular? Or both
Evidence in the social sciences - Series of lectures on causal modelling in t...
Evidence in the social sciences - Series of lectures on causal modelling in t...
Scientific problems and philosophical questions about causality. Why we need ...
Scientific problems and philosophical questions about causality. Why we need ...
Causal mosaics - Series of lectures on causal modelling in the social sciences
Causal mosaics - Series of lectures on causal modelling in the social sciences
Viewers also liked
The concept of variation in causal discovery
This document discusses the concept of variation in causal discovery. It argues that causal reasoning relies on the identification of differences or variations, and that establishing causes requires observing how changing factors affect outcomes. The document outlines three types of causal reasoning - ordinary, experimental, and statistical - and explains how each searches for variations. It discusses philosophers John Stuart Mill and Emile Durkheim's views on the importance of variations and differences in causal analysis. The key point is that causal discovery fundamentally involves reasoning about variations in order to identify putative causes and explain phenomena.
Causal assessment and the question of stability
Causal assessment and the question of stabilityUniversity of Amsterdam and University College London
The document discusses causal assessment and the concept of stability. It examines how causal modeling involves testing for invariance across changes in the environment or interventions. Specifically, it looks at how causal relationships are considered stable if the parameters and causal structure remain the same when populations are partitioned in different ways, such as by time period, gender, age, etc. The document also explores how invariance has been extended as a concept because examining stability of regular associations between variables is central to determining causation.How to get your paper published
Slides for workshop given at Conference by Women in Philosophy #3 https://womeninphilosophyconference.wordpress.com/program/
Poietic character of technology
The document discusses the relationship between philosophy of science and philosophy of technology. While traditionally viewed as separate disciplines, they may actually be investigating the same technoscientific object. New fields like exposomics that rely heavily on technology require reexamining philosophical assumptions. The document argues that technology has a "poietic character" in that it enables the production of data, phenomena, and knowledge, not just augmenting our capacities. This poietic view helps explain how causal knowledge is constructed in technoscience.
Russo psa2014
The document discusses mechanisms of disease from both biological and social perspectives. It argues that biological and social factors should be integrated and viewed as equal, active causes in disease etiology, rather than distinguishing them as proximal vs. distal. An example of this mixed or integrated approach is how social and environmental pressures can lead to epigenetic changes linked to disease. Alcohol-related diseases are also discussed as caused not just by alcohol exposure itself, but broader social and lifestyle factors. The document concludes that fully understanding disease requires an integrated approach that places biological and social components on equal footing as parts of mixed disease mechanisms.
Russo bielefed dec11
This document discusses causes and probabilities for health from a philosophical perspective. It introduces medical humanities and the philosophical study of medicine. It discusses different levels of causation for populations and individuals. It also discusses how probabilities are interpreted differently for generic groups versus single cases. The document questions who philosophical perspectives in medicine are for, suggesting laymen, medical practitioners, and how Western medicine can learn from other healing traditions.
Russo spt2013
This document discusses the relationship between science and technology in the field of exposomics research. It argues that technology plays an essential role in exposomics, enabling the creation of data, phenomena, and knowledge through tools like sensors, omics technologies, and statistics software. The line between science and technology is blurred, as exposomics would not be possible without extensive technological capabilities. However, technology alone is not enough - causal discovery still requires human scientists. The document calls for an integrated perspective on the philosophy of science and technology to understand how they codependently advance fields like exposomics.
Viewers also liked (7)
Similar to Russo Epsa2009 Variation
Csf Russo Measuring Variations
This document discusses causality and causal modelling in the social sciences. It aims to locate a neglected notion in the philosophy of causality called "variation" and argues that causal modelling is guided by a rationale of variation. The methodology examines causal modelling practices and arguments from philosophers to determine that variation is a precondition for notions like regularity and invariance. Variations must be meaningful, not chancy or accidental, and parameters must be stable for a causal interpretation.
Hypothesis
This document provides an overview of hypotheses for a presentation. It begins with learning outcomes which are to explain the meaning and significance of hypotheses, identify types of hypotheses, and illustrate why hypotheses are needed.
The presentation will cover the scientific method, meaning and types of variables, characteristics of good hypotheses, categories of hypotheses including null and alternative, and how to form and test hypotheses. Hypotheses are defined as educated guesses that relate variables and guide research. They must be testable, falsifiable, and contribute to theory. Hypotheses can be categorized by their formulation as null or alternative, by direction as directional or non-directional, and by their derivation as inductive or deductive.
I/O chapter 2 by Jason Manaois
The document discusses psychological research methods. It begins by defining research and its goals, which include describing behavior, establishing relationships between causes and effects, and developing theories about human behavior. It then describes the empirical research cycle and different research methods, both primary like experiments and secondary like meta-analyses. It discusses variables, research designs, qualitative and quantitative data collection and analysis, and drawing conclusions. Finally, it covers ethical issues in research and challenges in determining causality.
Causality, regularity, and variation. A reassessment
Causality, regularity, and variation. A reassessmentUniversity of Amsterdam and University College London
This document discusses causality theory and the role of regularity and variation in causal discovery. It argues that causal theory can be understood as a "mosaic" made up of different concepts that address scientific and philosophical questions about causality. Variation plays an important role in causal epistemology by allowing for diversity in methods while ensuring unity in causal theory. Regularities provide constraints on variations that are important for establishing generic causal relationships. Information may be a useful overarching concept for understanding causal production. The document advocates for a pluralistic but coordinated approach to causal theory.RMD100Q Chapter1 Cohen AK revised
This document discusses key concepts related to research paradigms. It begins by outlining the lesson objectives of understanding the three dominant research paradigms, distinguishing between positivism and interpretivism, and differentiating inductive and deductive reasoning. It then defines positivism as relying on strict scientific methods to obtain knowledge and interpretivism as valuing subjective meanings and contexts. The document contrasts features of the positivist versus interpretivist paradigms and discusses mixed methods approaches. It also defines deductive and inductive reasoning, as well as the concepts of research methods, methodology, and design.
gwc-lit-review-resentation-matt-w.ppt
This document provides guidance on writing an effective literature review. It discusses the purpose and characteristics of literature reviews, and outlines a process for conducting a literature review that includes planning, reading and researching sources, analyzing existing research, and drafting the review. Key steps covered are determining the focus and scope, summarizing and synthesizing sources, comparing and critiquing studies, and considering organizational patterns for structuring the review. The document also provides examples and advice for developing an introduction, conclusion, and properly citing sources.
gwc-lit-review-resentation-matt-w.ppt
This document provides guidance on writing literature reviews. It discusses the purpose and characteristics of effective literature reviews. It also outlines the key steps in the writing process, including planning, reading and researching, analyzing sources, drafting, and revising. The document offers advice on developing a focus and thesis, organizing the review, and incorporating summary, synthesis, comparison, and critique of sources.
Review of Literature
This document provides guidance on writing an effective literature review. It discusses the purpose and characteristics of literature reviews, and outlines a process for conducting a literature review that includes planning, reading and researching sources, analyzing existing research, and drafting the review. Key steps discussed include developing a focus and thesis statement, organizing sources topically or chronologically, and summarizing, synthesizing, comparing and critiquing the literature. The document also provides examples of introducing and concluding a literature review, as well as properly citing sources.
gwc-lit-review-resentation-matt-w.ppt
This document provides guidance on writing an effective literature review. It discusses the purpose and characteristics of literature reviews, and outlines a process for conducting a literature review that includes planning, reading and researching sources, analyzing existing research, and drafting the review. Key steps covered are determining the focus and scope, summarizing and synthesizing sources, comparing and critiquing existing studies, and considering organizational structures for the literature review. The document also provides examples and exercises to help readers apply the strategies.
gwc-lit-review-resentation-matt-w.ppt
This document provides guidance on writing literature reviews. It discusses the purpose and characteristics of effective literature reviews. It also outlines the key steps in the writing process, including planning, reading and researching, analyzing sources, drafting, and revising. The document offers advice on developing a focus and thesis, organizing the review, and incorporating summary, synthesis, comparison, and critique of sources.
Talking Theory
Slides from an informal presentation on a special issue of Perspectives on Psychological Science, focusing on issues of theory construction in psychology.
Chapter 2Theories & Models Week II – Slides 1
Chapter 2:
Theories & Models
Week II – Slides
1
Chapter 2:
Theories & Models
Week II – Slides
2
What we are Covering:
What is a theory?
Where do theories come from?
What is a model?
Unit of analysis
Logic models
Usefulness of a logic model
Additional issues in theory building
Finding and focusing a research question
3
3
What is a theory?
Theories are nets cast to catch what we call the world, to rationalize, to master, and to explain it. We endeavor to make the mesh ever finer & finer.“
Karl Popper, The Logic of Scientific Discovery
4
4
But, before theory . . .
Ask a Question or Observe/Identify a Puzzle
Goal: General Explanation
What is the general phenomenon you are seeking to explain?
Think in terms of concepts, not specific examples
Primary interest:
Explain change (a.k.a. variation) in the phenomenon of interest (a.k.a. dependent variable)
5
5
What is a theory?
Theories identify key variables
So we know what concepts to measure and observe
Theories tell causal stories
Often focusing on just one cause at a time
Example: broken windows theory, which looks at the variable disorder as a possible factor in crime
Theories explain variation
6
6
Dimensions & Variation
Does the variation we are interested in occur over time, across units, or both?
Spatial Variation
Multiple units are measured at one moment in time
Cross Sectional (CS) (e.g., # of giving campaigns by each non-profit in Broome County, in 2020)
Temporal Variation
Repeated measurement of one unit at different moments in time
Time-Series (TS) (e.g., # Broome county residents diagnosed each day with Covid19 from March 15th – September 1st)
7
7
Cross-sectional variation example
8
8
Longitudinal variation example
9
9
Dimensions & Variation
Can look at both space and time variation
Time-series cross-sectional (TSCS)
(e.g. Binghamton University mean GPAs across majors and semesters)
10
10
TSCS example
11
11
What is a theory?
Theories generate testable hypotheses
Hypotheses are predictions of what will happen if a theory is correct
Hypotheses can be compared with the facts, and can potentially falsify a theory
12
12
What is theory?
Theories focus on modifiable variables
(Note: this is a more PA/PP specific concern)
Social and policy research tends to focus upon modifiable variables as a way to offer guidance in policy and practice
Modifiable and nonmodifiable variables
Applied theories focus on modifiable variables—causes of an outcome that we can influence
Nonmodifiable variables cannot be changed by policy or practice
(example: policymaking in the US will be done under democratic process & norms)
13
13
Where do theories come from?
Grand social theories
Sometimes referred to as theoretical paradigms, which shape a researcher’s view of the variables and mechanisms involved in explaining human behavior
Example: Rational-choice theory
Individuals know all potential action that they can take
W ...
RMD 100Q Chapter1 cohen ak revised
This document provides an overview of different research paradigms and approaches. It discusses positivism and interpretivism as the two dominant epistemological views. Positivism follows the scientific method and seeks objective facts, while interpretivism sees knowledge as subjective and seeks meanings and interpretations. The document then outlines some key features and differences between positivist and interpretive research approaches, including their views on the nature of reality, the role of the researcher, and the types of data and methods typically used.
Theory Building in Business Research
Contents:
Meaning and Nature of Theory
Nature of Proposition
Scientific Method
Verifying Theory
Inductive and Deductive Reasoning
عرض تقديمي بلا عنوان914148697071446156.pptx
This document discusses hypotheses in research studies. It defines a hypothesis and explains their purposes, including guiding research design and statistical analysis. Hypotheses can be classified in various ways, such as simple vs complex, directional vs nondirectional, and causal vs associative. The null hypothesis predicts no relationship while the research hypothesis states an expected relationship. Guidelines are provided for developing testable hypotheses and critiquing them in research reports.
Russo Whatif Presentation
The document discusses counterfactual explanations of causation and invariance in causal modeling. It outlines two worries about this approach: 1) That background knowledge may be sufficient for explanation in some cases without counterfactuals; and 2) That the approach presumes experimental data while many cases involve only observational data. The document proposes that structural causal modeling addresses these worries by accounting for the role of background knowledge and providing a causal framework that can handle observational data through concepts like invariance defined non-counterfactually.
Research.pdf
The document provides an overview of key concepts in research including:
1. It defines research as a systematic process of collecting and analyzing information to increase knowledge through methods such as formulating hypotheses, collecting data, and reaching conclusions.
2. The different types of research are described such as descriptive, relational, and causal research. Research approaches, significance, and the research process are also outlined.
3. The document discusses important research concepts like validity, research design, data collection and analysis methods, interpretation, and report writing. It provides details on these various stages of conducting research.
VARIABLES AND HYPOTHESES
This document discusses research methodology concepts related to variables and hypotheses. It defines key terms like variables, independent and dependent variables, and different types of hypotheses. The document provides examples and explanations of these concepts. It outlines the objectives of understanding variables, hypothesis sources and types, and characteristics of a good hypothesis.
Parts of research paper
This document provides an overview and guidelines for developing different chapters of a research paper, including the introduction, literature review, and methodology sections.
The introduction chapter should include a rationale explaining the need for the study and a problem statement clearly outlining the research problem or question. It also defines any important terms and states the purpose and significance of the study.
The literature review chapter summarizes and critiques previous research relevant to the topic. It is organized by topic and presents related literature and studies in a logical order.
The methodology chapter describes the research methods and procedures used in the study, including the research design, environment/location of the study, population and sampling techniques, data collection instruments and procedures, and methods
Research paradigm
This document outlines several social science paradigms used in research, including positivism, post-positivism, constructivism, critical theory, and feminism. It also discusses deductive and inductive theory construction. Positivism views reality as objective and values empirical observation, while constructivism sees reality as subjective and values interpretation. Deductive research reasons from existing theories to hypotheses, while inductive research uses observation to discover patterns and develop theories.
Similar to Russo Epsa2009 Variation (20)
Causality, regularity, and variation. A reassessment
Causality, regularity, and variation. A reassessment
More from University of Amsterdam and University College London
H-AI-BRID - Thinking and designing Human-AI systems
H-AI-BRID - Thinking and designing Human-AI systemsUniversity of Amsterdam and University College London
Center for Cyber-Social Dynamcis Workshop, Department of Philosophy and Institute for Interdisciplinary Studies, UvATime in QCA: a philosopher’s perspective
This document discusses the role of time in qualitative comparative analysis (QCA). It makes three key points:
1) Including temporal information can help establish causal ordering and distinguish causal roles by breaking the symmetry of correlation in a longitudinal perspective.
2) When including time in QCA, it needs to be determined whether the configuration is static or dynamic, and if dynamic, whether it has evolved over time or is a new configuration to compare to previous ones.
3) While causal relations necessarily occur over time, with causes preceding effects, the temporal ordering of data used in QCA may not provide direct epistemic access and could be impacted by issues like data collection methods and latency.
Interconnected health-environmental challenges: Between the implosion of the ...
Interconnected health-environmental challenges: Between the implosion of the ...University of Amsterdam and University College London
This document discusses the transition between the modernist evidence regime and emerging alternative evidence practices in environmental health research. The modernist regime relies on assumptions of certainty, predictability, and objectivity. Emerging participatory practices see knowledge and action as interconnected and value situated and embedded knowledge production. These practices are used in areas like community-based air quality monitoring and nature-based solutions. The document argues we may be transitioning to a new pluralistic regime that integrates modern and alternative approaches through open dialogue and inclusion of different viewpoints.Trusting AI-generated contents: a techno-scientific approach
Trusting AI-generated contents: a techno-scientific approachUniversity of Amsterdam and University College London
This document discusses a techno-scientific approach to understanding how users come to trust AI-generated deepfake content. It proposes studying deepfakes from a system perspective, looking at the network of relationships between users, AI systems, and their environments, rather than focusing only on the technical aspects of deepfakes or user characteristics. This approach sees knowledge as produced through the partnership between humans and technologies. It aims to provide a more holistic understanding of deepfakes in order to inform policy responses that address their sociotechnical dimensions rather than just their technical aspects.Interconnected health-environmental challenges, Health and the Environment: c...
Interconnected health-environmental challenges, Health and the Environment: c...University of Amsterdam and University College London
This document discusses the transition between the modernist evidence regime and emerging alternative evidence practices for addressing interconnected health and environmental challenges. It outlines three parts: (1) the assumptions of the modernist evidence regime which values certainty, control and neutrality; (2) the rise of participatory evidence practices that involve communities and value uncertainty, complexity and situated knowledge; (3) questions around whether these alternative practices can thrive and integrate with existing regimes or represent new epistemological approaches needed to tackle wicked problems.Who Needs “Philosophy of Techno- Science”?
1) The document discusses the need for a field called "Philosophy of Techno-Science" that bridges the gaps between Philosophy of Science, Philosophy of Technology, and Science and Technology Studies.
2) There are currently distinct contexts and debates between these fields, with little cross-reference or mutual recognition. However, technology and science are intertwined in practice.
3) The author argues for an approach called "ReDiEM Knowledge" that characterizes knowledge as produced through techno-scientific activities by both human and artificial epistemic agents, embodied in both propositional and material forms.
Philosophy of Techno-Science: Whence and Whither
Philosophy of Techno-Science: Whence and WhitherUniversity of Amsterdam and University College London
This document outlines the philosophy of techno-science, an emerging field that bridges philosophy of science and philosophy of technology. It discusses how the author was trained in mainstream philosophy of science and encountered questions about technology. The document also provides an outlook on its contents, which cover developing a theoretical framework for studying techno-scientific practices through case studies, applying tools from philosophy of information, examining modeling and validation practices, and developing a process-based onto-epistemology of techno-scientific knowledge production. The goal is to regain a unified philosophy and further interdisciplinary dialogue on techno-scientific problems.Charting the explanatory potential of network models/network modeling in psyc...
Charting the explanatory potential of network models/network modeling in psyc...University of Amsterdam and University College London
This document discusses the explanatory potential of network models in psychopathology. It outlines three key aspects:
1) Network models can explain covariations between symptoms by clarifying when one symptom acts as a difference maker for another and how the strengths of causal connections may change. To fully assess changes, the whole network structure must be considered.
2) Network models also serve as heuristic tools to generate hypotheses about symptom relationships to test in individual therapeutic settings.
3) Unlike traditional mechanistic models, network models require fluid system boundaries as mental disorders are dynamic. The more a network model can adapt explanations across configurations, the higher its explanatory power.The implosion of medical evidence: emerging approaches for diverse practices ...
The implosion of medical evidence: emerging approaches for diverse practices ...University of Amsterdam and University College London
This document discusses alternative evidence practices for addressing interconnected health and environmental challenges. It begins by describing the failures of modernist evidence regimes which assume certainty, controllability, and neutrality. It then introduces participatory evidence practices which embrace uncertainty, complex causality, and situated knowledge. These practices involve diverse voices, participation, and mutual learning between researchers and citizens. Evidence is seen not as objective facts but as clues embedded in social processes that can inform action. The document argues for a new epistemology of inclusive, transdisciplinary and value-promoting scientific knowledge and evidence to overcome historical injustices and better address complex problems.On the epistemic and normative benefits of methodological pluralism
On the epistemic and normative benefits of methodological pluralismUniversity of Amsterdam and University College London
This document discusses the benefits of methodological pluralism in science. It argues that a plurality of methods exists across and within scientific disciplines and fields of study based on examples from biomarkers research and computational history. Methodological pluralism is described as both a descriptive claim about the diversity of existing methods and a normative claim that this diversity is valuable. It enhances our understanding by enriching the types of knowledge and perspectives gained from scientific inquiry. The document warns against "methodological imperialism" where one method tries to dominate entire disciplines, and advocates embracing multiple methods and voices to increase epistemic diversity.Socio-markers and information transmission
This document discusses bio-markers and socio-markers, which are measurable characteristics that can provide insights into health and disease processes. Bio-markers point to biochemical processes, while socio-markers indicate salient points in social processes that influence health. Both types of markers are not direct causes, but can help track the flow of information from exposures to clinical outcomes. Considering health and disease as processes occurring through bio-social mechanisms, markers signpost key points along causal trajectories. This shift emphasizes understanding disease causation through information transmission within processes, rather than searching for discrete causal entities.
Disease causation and public health interventions
Disease causation and public health interventionsUniversity of Amsterdam and University College London
This document discusses the relationship between conceptual frameworks in public health and normative questions about appropriate policy interventions. It argues that conceptualizations of disease causation, like considering social factors as proximate rather than just distant causes, have implications for what public health actions should follow. The document uses the example of conceptualizing obesity to argue that philosophical work on concepts can influence values and promote certain policy approaches. It concludes that philosophical analysis is fundamentally important not just for foundations but also for determining appropriate actions, and that the societal relevance of philosophy extends beyond what is often recognized.The life-world of health and disease and the design of public health interven...
The life-world of health and disease and the design of public health interven...University of Amsterdam and University College London
This document discusses the importance of considering the "lifeworld" - how people experience everyday life - when designing public health interventions. It argues that current approaches often focus too much on biological factors and do not sufficiently account for social factors. The lifeworld concept aims to integrate both biological and social determinants of health and disease. Studying lifeworlds using mixed quantitative and qualitative methods can provide insights into the complex interactions between factors. This more holistic understanding could then be used to design public health interventions that target the most important social and biological drivers of issues like COVID-19, obesity, and other preventable health problems.Towards and epistemological and ethical XAI
1) Traditionally, discussions around explainable AI (XAI) have treated epistemological and ethical concerns separately, with ethics seen as a post-hoc assessment.
2) The authors argue that epistemological and ethical considerations should be integrated throughout the entire XAI development process, from initial design to final use.
3) Drawing from argumentation theory, the authors propose a framework for addressing both epistemological queries about an AI system's reliability and normative queries about its fairness from both expert and non-expert perspectives.
Value-promoting concepts in the health sciences and public health
Value-promoting concepts in the health sciences and public healthUniversity of Amsterdam and University College London
This document discusses conceptualizing health and disease and the normative implications of different concepts. It argues that conceptualizing social factors as proximate causes of health and disease, rather than distant causes, has implications for public health policies and interventions. The document uses obesity and food labeling policies as an example, noting that conceptualizing social causes as proximate implies different actions around regulating food marketing and industry compared to viewing social causes as distant. Overall, the document examines how scientific concepts can promote certain values and influence normative decisions, calling for more integration between philosophy of science, ethics and political philosophy on these issues.Connecting the epistemology and ethics of AI
The document discusses connecting the ethics and epistemology of AI. It argues that ethics and epistemology should be considered together throughout the entire AI development process, rather than as separate and disconnected projects. The focus shifts from evaluating just the AI output to examining the entire process from design through use. Normative and epistemological questions need to be addressed at each stage of development. It also explores how arguments from expert opinion can help address situations of symmetric and asymmetric knowledge between experts and non-experts regarding AI systems.
How is Who. Empowering evidence for sustainability and public health interven...
How is Who. Empowering evidence for sustainability and public health interven...University of Amsterdam and University College London
This document discusses the need for knowledge and evidence about sustainability and public health interventions to enhance shared agency and collective action. It makes three key points:
1. Knowledge and evidence are not static things but dynamic social processes of generation and mobilization that are entangled with action.
2. Interventions involve complex mixed mechanisms that are biological, social, political, technical, and cultural in nature and how they interact in environments.
3. Research should consider agency at different levels from the start to empower various actors, like researchers, citizens, patients, and policymakers, in different contexts. The "how" of interventions depends on understanding the "who" that is involved.High technologized justice – The road map for policy & regulation. Legaltech ...
High technologized justice – The road map for policy & regulation. Legaltech ...University of Amsterdam and University College London
Technology needs humans more than laws for three key reasons:
1) Humans invent technology by designing and assembling its parts, initiating its process of concretization and individuation. We control the purposes and functions of technological development.
2) Humans use technology to accomplish tasks and study the world. We are responsible for deciding why and how technologies are applied.
3) Technological development is a choice that humans make about what capabilities to develop and what constraints to impose. We design technologies and choose their specifications, purposes, and values. Technological progress is determined by our choices, not by inevitable laws of development.Connecting the epistemology and ethics of AI
The document discusses connecting the ethics and epistemology of AI. It argues that ethics and epistemology should be considered together throughout the entire AI process, from design to use, rather than as separate post-hoc assessments. The authors propose an "ethics-cum-epistemology" approach where normative and epistemological questions are addressed at each stage. They also analyze scenarios involving experts and non-experts to show how ethics and epistemology can be addressed depending on levels of expertise between actors. The goal is to shift the focus from AI outcomes to the full process in order to better ensure AI systems are developed and used responsibly.
Science and values. A two-way relations
This document discusses the two-way relationship between science and values. It presents two case studies to illustrate how values influence scientific concepts and methods, and how concepts and methods can also promote certain values. First, the conceptualization of health and disease can promote a more social understanding of these concepts that would justify different public health interventions. Second, risk assessment tools used in the justice system presuppose a consequentialist view of punishment by emphasizing predictive features, independently of the specific variables used. The document argues that questions about the influence of values on science, and science on values, are intertwined and require consideration from both philosophy of science and ethics perspectives.
More from University of Amsterdam and University College London (20)
H-AI-BRID - Thinking and designing Human-AI systems
H-AI-BRID - Thinking and designing Human-AI systems
Interconnected health-environmental challenges: Between the implosion of the ...
Interconnected health-environmental challenges: Between the implosion of the ...
Trusting AI-generated contents: a techno-scientific approach
Trusting AI-generated contents: a techno-scientific approach
Interconnected health-environmental challenges, Health and the Environment: c...
Interconnected health-environmental challenges, Health and the Environment: c...
Charting the explanatory potential of network models/network modeling in psyc...
Charting the explanatory potential of network models/network modeling in psyc...
The implosion of medical evidence: emerging approaches for diverse practices ...
The implosion of medical evidence: emerging approaches for diverse practices ...
On the epistemic and normative benefits of methodological pluralism
On the epistemic and normative benefits of methodological pluralism
The life-world of health and disease and the design of public health interven...
The life-world of health and disease and the design of public health interven...
Value-promoting concepts in the health sciences and public health
Value-promoting concepts in the health sciences and public health
How is Who. Empowering evidence for sustainability and public health interven...
How is Who. Empowering evidence for sustainability and public health interven...
High technologized justice – The road map for policy & regulation. Legaltech ...
High technologized justice – The road map for policy & regulation. Legaltech ...
Russo Epsa2009 Variation
- 1. The rationale of variation in methodological and evidential pluralism Federica Russo Philosophy, Kent
- 9. Do methodological and evidential pluralism entail epistemological pluralism?
- 10. Causal modelling is regimented by a single rationale in model building and testing: the rationale of variation
- 16. Wanna know more?