Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Homogeneity, selection, and the faithfulness condition

  • Published:
Minds and Machines Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The faithfulness condition (FC) is a useful principle for inferring causal structure from statistical data. The usual motivation for the FC appeals to theorems showing that exceptions to it have probability zero, provided that some apparently reasonable assumptions obtain. However, some have objected that, the theorems notwithstanding, exceptions to the FC are probable in commonly occurring circumstances. I argue that exceptions to the FC are probable in the circumstances specified by this objection only given the presence of a condition that I label homogeneity, and furthermore that this condition typically does not obtain in the FC’s intended domain of application.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Billingsley, P. (1995). Probability and measure (3rd edn.). New York, NY: Wiley.

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  • Cartwright, N. (1999a). The dappled word: a study of the boundaries of science. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cartwright, N. (1999b). Causal diversity and the Markov condition. Synthese, 121, 3–27.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chu, T., Glymour, C., Scheines, R., & Spirtes, P. (2003). A statistical problem for inference to regulatory structure from associations of gene expression measurement with microarrays. Bioinformatics, 19, 1147–1152.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Glymour, C. (1999). Rabbit hunting. Synthese, 121, 55–78.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Glymour, C., & Cooper, G. (Eds.) (1999). Computation, causation, and discovery. Menlo Park, CA: American Association for Artificial Intelligence.

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  • Halmos, P. (1950). Measure theory. New York: D. Van Nostrand Company.

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  • Hoover, K. (2001). Causality in macroeconomics. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Howson, C., & Urbach, P. (1993). Scientific reasoning: The Bayesian approach (2nd edn.). La Salle, IL: Open Court Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Liljegren, S., Ditta, G., Eshed, Y., Savidge, B., Bowman, J., & Yanofsky, M. (2000). Shatterproof MADS-box genes control seed dispersal in Arabidopsis. Nature, 404, 766–770.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lindsey, J. K. (1996). Parametric statistical inference. Oxford: Clarendon Press.

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  • Meek, C. (1995). Strong completeness and faithfulness in Bayesian networks. In P. Besnard (Ed.), Uncertainty in artificial intelligence: Proceedings of the 11th conference (pp. 411–418). San Francisco: Morgan Kaufman Publishers.

  • Neopolitan, R. (2004). Learning Bayesian networks. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pearl, J. (1998). TETRAD and SEM. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 33, 119–128.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pearl, J. (2000). Causality: Models, reasoning, and inference. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pearson, H. (2002). Surviving a knockout blow. Nature, 415, 8–9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Port, S. C. (1994). Theoretical probability for applications. New York: Wiley.

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  • Robins, J. M., & Wasserman, L. (1999). On the impossibility of inferring causation from association without background knowledge. In: C. Glymour, & G. Cooper (Eds.), Computation, causation, and discovery (pp. 305–322). Menlo park, CA, Cambridge, MA: AAAI Press/The MIT Press.

  • Scarff, K., Ung, K., Nandurkar, H., Crack, P., Bird, C., & Bird, P. (2004). Targeted disruption of SPI3/Serpinb6 does not result in developmental or growth defects, leukocyte dysfunction, or susceptibility to stroke. Molecular and Cellular Biology, 24, 4075–4082.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Spirtes, P., Glymour, C., & Scheines, R. (1993). Causation, prediction, and search. Berlin Heidelberg New York: Springer.

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  • Spirtes, P., Glymour, C., & Scheines, R. (2000). Causation, prediction, and search, (2nd edn.). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  • Steel, D. (2005). Indeterminism and the Causal Markov Condition. British Journal for the Philosophy of Science, 56, 3–26.

    Article  MATH  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  • Stirzaker, D. (2003). Elementary probability (2nd edn.). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  • Woodward, J. (1998). Causal independence and faithfulness. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 33, 129–148.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

I would like to thank Richard Scheines for helpful comments on an earlier draft and Clark Glymour for discussion. I would also like to thank audiences at the 2004 meeting of the British Society for the Philosophy of Science (especially Dan Hausman) and the 2004 Konstanz Summer School on Causality, Ignorance, and Uncertainty, and two anonymous referees.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Philosophy, Michigan State University, 503 S. Kedzie Hall, East Lansing, MI, 48824, USA

    Daniel Steel

Authors
  1. Daniel Steel
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Daniel Steel.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Steel, D. Homogeneity, selection, and the faithfulness condition. Minds & Machines 16, 303–317 (2006). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11023-006-9032-4

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11023-006-9032-4

Keywords

Search

Navigation