Talk:Rubin Causal Model

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Article has been wikified. KarenAnn 17:01, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Alternative Views

Are there any plans to add criticisms of the RCM, such as the anti-experimentalist view of Heckman? The kerfuffle between Heckman and Sociological Methodology might make for fun reading! SkipSmith 05:53, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Great idea. Add away. David.Kane 02:30, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] History of the model

Is this article an example of Stigler's Law? I am thinking of David Freedman's criticism, e.g., in Statistical Models (page 199): The model was proposed by Neyman (1923)...[it] has been rediscovered many times: see, for instance, Roy (1951) or Hodges and Lehmann (1964, Section 9.4). The setup is often called "Rubin's model": see for instance Holland (1986), who cites Rubin (1974). That simply mistakes the history. I don't know enough to judge Freedman's claim. But if he's right, it seems that the title of this article should be changed, or at least that a new section about Neyman's work should be added.{John G Bullock 14:28, 25 December 2006 (UTC)}

Feel free to add a new section about the history. Rubin and others have written on this topic, giving due credit to Neyman and others. (Whether or not Roy deserves much credit is a matter of dispute.) But Rubin is the single person most associated with this approach, at least for the last 3 decades, so the title should stay the same. David.Kane 19:36, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Some people do refer to it as Neyman-Rubin or Neyman-Rubin-Holland (or Neyman-Holland-Rubin). But "Rubin Causal Model" seems the most common by some way. Qwfp (talk) 18:48, 20 February 2008 (UTC)