What鈥檚 an Effect? 

 Though it hardly comports with my own views, there are plenty of people in the social sciences and economics that are troubled by the potential outcomes framework of causality. What intrigues me about this opposition is that most of those who object to the notion of causality appear comfortable with talk about regression 鈥渆ffects.鈥?   

 If you object to talk about causality, what do you mean by 鈥渆ffect鈥?? 
 


 By way of preemptive self-defense, this question isn鈥檛 about my inability to understand that regression coefficients provide a neat summary of the sample data in a purely descriptive sense (I do get that).  But if the goal is getting descriptives, why call regression coefficients 鈥渆ffects鈥?? Doesn鈥檛 鈥渆ffect鈥? imply agency? Sure, the predicted Y might increase by b units if we change X by one unit (agency! ha!) but then that鈥檚 really the analyst鈥檚 doing (we shift X by one unit) - and didn鈥檛 we want the analysis to speak to what鈥檚 happening in the world outside of that scatter plot print out? 

 Here鈥檚 the task: Can anybody provide an interpretation of the word 鈥渆ffect鈥? that (a) doesn鈥檛 just refer to what the analyst can do with that scatter plot on the desk, and that (b) does not take recourse to a manipulability (counterfactualist or potential outcomes) account of causality? 

 What鈥檚 your preferred non-causal explanation for why one might call regression coefficients 鈥渆ffects鈥??