{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.017595307917888565, 'fraction_numerical': 0.0, 'mean_word_length': 5.131736526946108, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
The Price equation and the causal analysis of evolutionary change

Though the Price equation in itself is simply a statistical identity, biologists have often adopted a ‘causal interpretation’ of the equation, in the sense that its component terms have been supposed to correspond to distinct causal processes in evolution, such as natural selection and transmission bias. In this paper, we bring the issue of causal interpretation to the fore, by studying the conditions under which it is legitimate to read causal meaning into the Price equation. We argue that only if substantive assumptions about causal structure are made, which can be represented in the form of a causal model, can the component terms of the Price equation be interpreted as causally meaningful. We conclude with a reflection on the epistemic uses of the Price equation, emphasizing the difference between the description, explanation and prediction of evolutionary change. This article is part of the theme issue ‘Fifty years of the Price equation’.