You mention Bayesian statistics as a thing like Pearls causality maths that's too complex.for most people and so hasn't caught on. I'd argue the exact opposite. Bayesian statistics ARE complicated but the first time I saw them my reaction was Oh My God this is going to change everything about how I reason about anything.
And it has. So it seems to me.that Pearls formalisms just aren't that useful. -- Charles On Thu., 23 Aug. 2018, 3:24 am Bharat Shetty, <bharat.she...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Wed, Aug 22, 2018 at 11:38 PM Landon Hurley <ljrhur...@gmail.com> > wrote: > > > Sorry to delurk with a massive rant but I love this field and Pearl's > > work, and spent the last 18 months being denied my doctorate because I > use > > to much maths for a Psych department. > > > > >Anyone else have opinions on why his ideas haven't caught on more > > >generally? > > > > > > There are two connected problems (sorry, this area of statistics is my > > field and raison d'etre, so bear with me) as to why Pearl's work isn't > > universal. > > > > > Thank you for sharing your insights and discussion! > > Regards, > Bharat >
