Causality. Why you shouldn't use Bradford Hill criteria!

The video discusses causality, emphasizing the difference between correlation and causation. It critiques the Bradford Hill criteria, arguing that they often restate correlation rather than proving causation. The video suggests that causality should be determined by excluding alternative explanations like chance, bias, confounding, reverse causation, and fraud. It provides examples to illustrate these concepts, such as the relationship between ice cream consumption and shark attacks, which is confounded by hot weather.

What role does plausibility play in establishing a causal relationship?

What does the speaker suggest as the right way to think about causality?

How does the speaker differentiate between bias and confounding?