Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-ndw9j Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-19T12:03:30.373Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Problem of Piecemeal Induction

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 January 2022

Conor Mayo-Wilson
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

I argue that, in causal inference from many observational studies, the piecemeal collection of data can cause underdetermination, even if arbitrarily large amounts of reliable data are available. Two theorems reveal that, for any variable set V, there are causal theories over V that can be distinguished if and only if all variables are simultaneously measured. These results entail that, a priori, one cannot know which observational studies will be most informative with respect to the true causal theory describing V. Hence, scientific institutions may need to play a larger role in coordinating differing research programs.

Type
Research Article
Information
Philosophy of Science , Volume 78 , Issue 5 , December 2011 , pp. 864 - 874
Copyright
Copyright © The Philosophy of Science Association

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Footnotes

‡

Thanks to David Danks and Clark Glymour, who provided useful comments, corrections, and suggestions on several drafts of this article. The article also benefited greatly from discussions with participants at three conferences, namely, those sponsored by the Philosophy of Science Association, the British Society for Philosophy of Science, and the graduate students at Princeton and Rutgers.

References

Cartwright, Nancy. 1989. Nature's Capacities and Their Measurement. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Cartwright, Nancy. 2002. “Against Modularity, the Causal Markov Condition, and Any Link between the Two: Comments on Hausman and Woodward.” British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 53:411–53.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cartwright, Nancy. 2007. Hunting Causes and Using Them. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Danks, David. 2005. “Scientific Coherence and the Fusion of Experimental Results.” British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 56:791–807.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Freedman, David, and Humphreys, Paul. 1999. “Are There Algorithms That Discover Causal Structure?” Synthese 121:29–54.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hausman, Daniel, and Woodward, James. 2004a. “Manipulation and the Causal Markov Condition.” Philosophy of Science 71 (Proceedings): 846–56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hausman, Daniel, and Woodward, James. 2004b. “Modularity and the Causal Markov Condition: A Restatement.” British Journal Philosophy of Science 55:147–61.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hesslow, G. 1976. “Discussion: Two Notes on the Probabilistic Approach to Causality.” Philosophy of Science 43:290–92.Google Scholar
Pearl, Judea, and Verma, Thomas. 1991. “A Theory of Inferred Causation.” In Principles of Knowledge Representation and Reasoning: Proceeding of the Second International Conference, ed. Allen, J. A., Fikes, R., and Sandewall, E., 441–52. San Mateo, CA: Morgan Kaufmann.Google Scholar
Spirtes, Peter, Glymour, Clark, and Scheines, Richard. 2000. Causation, Prediction, and Search. 2nd ed. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Steel, Daniel. 2005. “Indeterminism and the Causal Markov Condition.” British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 56:3–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tillman, Robert E., Danks, David, and Glymour, Clark. 2008. “Integrating Locally Learned Causal Structures with Overlapping Variables.” In Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems 21, ed. Koller, D., Schuurmans, D., Bengio, Y., and Bottou, L., 1665–72. Vancouver: NIPS.Google Scholar
Whewell, William. 1859. History of the Inductive Sciences. Vols. 1–2, 3rd ed. New York: Appleton.Google Scholar