There are no apples and oranges in this conversation. Mistaken epistemology is mistaken. Fruit plays no part in it.
I'm sad that your response to Pearl's ideas is to cite a litany of influences you believe as exposing his ideas as not novel. This is a a pointless activity.
Theories are not equal alternatives. When a complete and clarifying framework is defined, we abandon the mistaken structures of the past. Knowledge does not endlessly bifurcate: unification is our most valuable intellectual activity. Your equivocation among competing alternatives is an exercise of socially attached apologetics.
Causal explanations form the basis of the entirety of western philosophy, from Aristotle's four causes onward. Accuracy is not a matter of taste.
I'm sad that your response to Pearl's ideas is to cite a litany of influences you believe as exposing his ideas as not novel. This is a a pointless activity.
Theories are not equal alternatives. When a complete and clarifying framework is defined, we abandon the mistaken structures of the past. Knowledge does not endlessly bifurcate: unification is our most valuable intellectual activity. Your equivocation among competing alternatives is an exercise of socially attached apologetics.
Causal explanations form the basis of the entirety of western philosophy, from Aristotle's four causes onward. Accuracy is not a matter of taste.