Beware of the DAG!

Directed acyclic graph (DAG) models are popular tools for describing causal relationships and for guiding attempts to learn them from data. In particular, they appear to supply a means of extracting causal conclusions from probabilistic conditional independence properties inferred from purely observational data. I take a critical look at this enterprise, and suggest that it is in need of more, and more explicit, methodological and philosophical justification than it typically receives. In particular, I argue for the value of a clean separation between formal causal language and intuitive causal assumptions.