Regression explanation and statistical autonomy

Research output: Contribution to journalJournal articleResearchpeer-review

Standard

Regression explanation and statistical autonomy. / Witteveen, Joeri.

In: Biology and Philosophy, Vol. 34, 51, 2019, p. 1-20.

Research output: Contribution to journalJournal articleResearchpeer-review

Harvard

Witteveen, J 2019, 'Regression explanation and statistical autonomy', Biology and Philosophy, vol. 34, 51, pp. 1-20. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10539-019-9705-z

APA

Witteveen, J. (2019). Regression explanation and statistical autonomy. Biology and Philosophy, 34, 1-20. [51]. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10539-019-9705-z

Vancouver

Witteveen J. Regression explanation and statistical autonomy. Biology and Philosophy. 2019;34:1-20. 51. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10539-019-9705-z

Author

Witteveen, Joeri. / Regression explanation and statistical autonomy. In: Biology and Philosophy. 2019 ; Vol. 34. pp. 1-20.

Bibtex

@article{9a170cf653d742dcbc7022af01f4cf49,
title = "Regression explanation and statistical autonomy",
abstract = "The phenomenon of regression toward the mean is notoriously liable to be overlooked or misunderstood; regression fallacies are easy to commit. But even when regression phenomena are duly recognized, it remains perplexing how they can feature in explanations. This article develops a philosophical account of regression explanations as “statistically autonomous” explanations that cannot be deepened by adducing details about causal histories, even if the explananda as such are embedded in the causal structure of the world. That regression explanations have statistical autonomy was first suggested by Ian Hacking and has recently been defended and elaborated by Andr{\'e} Ariew, Yasha Rohwer, and Collin Rice. However, I will argue that these analyses fail to capture what regression{\textquoteright}s statistical autonomy consists in and how it sets regression explanations apart from other kinds of explanation. The alternative account I develop also shows what is amiss with a recent denial of regression{\textquoteright}s statistical autonomy. Marc Lange has argued that facts that can be explained as regression phenomena can in principle also be explained by citing a conjunction of causal histories. The account of regression explanation developed here shows that his argument is based on a misunderstanding of the nature of statistical autonomy.",
author = "Joeri Witteveen",
year = "2019",
doi = "10.1007/s10539-019-9705-z",
language = "English",
volume = "34",
pages = "1--20",
journal = "Biology and Philosophy",
issn = "0169-3867",
publisher = "Springer",

}

RIS

TY - JOUR

T1 - Regression explanation and statistical autonomy

AU - Witteveen, Joeri

PY - 2019

Y1 - 2019

N2 - The phenomenon of regression toward the mean is notoriously liable to be overlooked or misunderstood; regression fallacies are easy to commit. But even when regression phenomena are duly recognized, it remains perplexing how they can feature in explanations. This article develops a philosophical account of regression explanations as “statistically autonomous” explanations that cannot be deepened by adducing details about causal histories, even if the explananda as such are embedded in the causal structure of the world. That regression explanations have statistical autonomy was first suggested by Ian Hacking and has recently been defended and elaborated by André Ariew, Yasha Rohwer, and Collin Rice. However, I will argue that these analyses fail to capture what regression’s statistical autonomy consists in and how it sets regression explanations apart from other kinds of explanation. The alternative account I develop also shows what is amiss with a recent denial of regression’s statistical autonomy. Marc Lange has argued that facts that can be explained as regression phenomena can in principle also be explained by citing a conjunction of causal histories. The account of regression explanation developed here shows that his argument is based on a misunderstanding of the nature of statistical autonomy.

AB - The phenomenon of regression toward the mean is notoriously liable to be overlooked or misunderstood; regression fallacies are easy to commit. But even when regression phenomena are duly recognized, it remains perplexing how they can feature in explanations. This article develops a philosophical account of regression explanations as “statistically autonomous” explanations that cannot be deepened by adducing details about causal histories, even if the explananda as such are embedded in the causal structure of the world. That regression explanations have statistical autonomy was first suggested by Ian Hacking and has recently been defended and elaborated by André Ariew, Yasha Rohwer, and Collin Rice. However, I will argue that these analyses fail to capture what regression’s statistical autonomy consists in and how it sets regression explanations apart from other kinds of explanation. The alternative account I develop also shows what is amiss with a recent denial of regression’s statistical autonomy. Marc Lange has argued that facts that can be explained as regression phenomena can in principle also be explained by citing a conjunction of causal histories. The account of regression explanation developed here shows that his argument is based on a misunderstanding of the nature of statistical autonomy.

U2 - 10.1007/s10539-019-9705-z

DO - 10.1007/s10539-019-9705-z

M3 - Journal article

VL - 34

SP - 1

EP - 20

JO - Biology and Philosophy

JF - Biology and Philosophy

SN - 0169-3867

M1 - 51

ER -

ID: 226945971