Reconstructing Causal Reasoning about Evidence: a Case Study
نویسندگان
چکیده
When procedural-support systems are to be useful in practice, they should provide support for causal reasoning about evidence. Such support should be both rationally well-founded and natural to the users of such systems. This article studies two possible foundations for such support, logics for defeasible argumentation and logical models of causal-abductive reasoning. A court decision about a car accident is reconstructed in the two formalisms, and the results are compared on both their rationality and their naturalness. It is concluded that more research is needed to combine the strong points of the two approaches.
منابع مشابه
How Causal Reasoning Can Bias Empirical Evidence
Theories of causal reasoning and learning often implicitly assume that the structural implications of causal models and empirical evidence are consistent. However, for probabilistic causal relations this may not be the case. We propose a causal consistency hypothesis claiming that people tend to create consistency between the two types of knowledge. Mismatches between structural implications an...
متن کاملThe Effect of Bayesian Reasoning Training on the Results of Clinical Reasoning Tests of Interns
Introduction: Clinical reasoning includes a range of thinking about clinical medicine at all stages of patient evaluation. Bayesian theory can be used to refute or confirm differential diagnoses in the clinical reasoning process. In this way, by learning the basic mathematical language of probability in medicine, we can change our beliefs according to new evidence. The aim of this study is to i...
متن کاملPHD THESIS SUMMARY: Causal reasoning in economics: a selective exploration of semantic, epistemic and dynamical aspects
Many broad questions of high philosophical interest about causal reasoning in economics remain poorly answered. First, what are the meanings of causal claims? This is a semantic question. Second, how can a causal claim be adequately supported by evidence? This is an epistemological question. Third, how are causal beliefs affected by new information? This is a question about belief dynamics. Thi...
متن کاملA Transitivity Heuristic of Probabilistic Causal Reasoning
In deterministic causal chains the relations „A causes B’ and „B causes C’ imply that „A causes C’. However, this is not necessarily the case for probabilistic causal relationships: A may probabilistically cause B, and B may probabilistically cause C, but A does not probabilistically cause C, but rather ¬C. The normal transitive inference is only valid when the Markov condition holds, a key fea...
متن کاملReasoning about E-vi ence in Causal Expllanations
Phyllis Koton* MIT Lab for Computer Science 545 Technology Square Cambridge, MA 02139 elanQOZ.AI.MIT.EDU Causal models can provide richly-detailed knowledge bases for producing explanations about behaviors in many domains, a task often termed interpretation or diagnosis. However, producing a causal explanation from the model can be time-consuming. This paper describes a system that solves a new...
متن کامل