Dear Lotfi,
}words, we have to assume that causality and related concepts such as
}responsibility and propensity are a matter of degree
I believe that is what "probabilistic causality" has always been about.
Pearl, Halpern, Hitchcock, and others lay a nice foundation for measuring
degrees of influence, considering multiple causes, multiple paths for
single causes, and even retrospectively examining relative blame. No
"yes/no" limits there.
Probably we also need some form of imprecision probabilities to handle
real-world ignorance. But that is a separate matter.
This is not a rejection of fuzzy logic, nor was my earlier email meant to
cast aspersions on research not in Sewall Wright's line of descent. But
people seem to be rejecting that approach on false premises.
Charles
--
Charles R. Twardy, Res.Fellow, Monash University, School of CSSE
ctwardy at alumni indiana edu +61(3) 9905 5823 (w) 5146 (fax)
"Incongruous places often inspire anomalous stories." -- S.J. Gould
