Andrew Gelman distinguishes these. He believes in symbolic formalization but doesn’t get Judea Pearl’s DAGs. I personally find visualization to be very useful, not always in DAGs, sometimes simply in expected patterns. I also have found equational models to be useful on different occasions. Other times I find analytical models extremely difficult to follow because the explication is too dense. They are certainly distinct types of formalization, but none is free of the potential risks of non-deconfusing that adamShimi lays out.
Andrew Gelman distinguishes these. He believes in symbolic formalization but doesn’t get Judea Pearl’s DAGs. I personally find visualization to be very useful, not always in DAGs, sometimes simply in expected patterns. I also have found equational models to be useful on different occasions. Other times I find analytical models extremely difficult to follow because the explication is too dense. They are certainly distinct types of formalization, but none is free of the potential risks of non-deconfusing that adamShimi lays out.