What Is Wrong With Bayes Nets?

The Monist 84 (2):242-264 (2001)
  Copy   BIBTEX

Abstract

Probability is a guide to life partly because it is a guide to causality. Work over the last two decades using Bayes nets supposes that probability is a very sure guide to causality. I think not, and I shall argue that here. Almost all the objections I list are well-known. But I have come to see them in a different light by reflecting again on the original work in this area by Wolfgang Spohn and his recent defense of it in a paper titled “Bayesian Nets Are All There Is to Causality”.

Links

PhilArchive



    Upload a copy of this work     Papers currently archived: 93,990

External links

Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server

Through your library

Similar books and articles

Causal inference. How can Bayes nets contribute?Isabelle Drouet - 2007 - In Federica Russo & Jon Williamson (eds.), Causality and Probability in the Sciences. College Publications. pp. 487--501.
Causal Exclusion and Causal Bayes Nets.Alexander Gebharter - 2017 - Philosophy and Phenomenological Research 95 (2):353-375.
Jon Williamson bayesian nets and causality.Clark Glymour - 2009 - British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 60 (4):849-855.
JON WILLIAMSON Bayesian Nets and Causality. [REVIEW]Clark Glymour - 2009 - British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 60 (4):849-855.
Bayes Nets and Rationality.Stephan Hartmann - 2021 - In Markus Knauff & Wolfgang Spohn (eds.), The Handbook of Rationality. London: MIT Press.

Analytics

Added to PP
2010-07-25

Downloads
183 (#109,160)

6 months
18 (#191,386)

Historical graph of downloads
How can I increase my downloads?

Author's Profile

Nancy Cartwright
London School of Economics

References found in this work

No references found.

Add more references