Switch to: References

Citations of:

The Role of Randomization in Inference

Dennis V. Lindley

PSA: Proceedings of the Biennial Meeting of the Philosophy of Science Association 1982:431 - 446 (1982)

Add citations

You must login to add citations.

The Virtues and Limitations of Randomized Experiments.Tudor M. Baetu - 2022 - Acta Analytica 37 (4):453-470.details Despite the consensus promoted by the evidence-based medicine framework, many authors continue to express doubts about the superiority of randomized controlled trials. This paper evaluates four objections targeting the legitimacy, feasibility, and extrapolation problems linked to the experimental practice of random allocation. I argue that random allocation is a methodologically sound and feasible practice contributing to the internal validity of controlled experiments dealing with heterogeneous populations. I emphasize, however, that random allocation is solely designed to ensure the validity of causal (...) Download Export citation Bookmark
Assessing Randomness in Case Assignment: The Case Study of the Brazilian Supreme Court.Julio Michael Stern, Diego Marcondes & Claudia Peixoto - 2019 - Law, Probability and Risk 18 (2/3):97-114.details Sortition, i.e. random appointment for public duty, has been employed by societies throughout the years as a firewall designated to prevent illegitimate interference between parties in a legal case and agents of the legal system. In judicial systems of modern western countries, random procedures are mainly employed to select the jury, the court and/or the judge in charge of judging a legal case. Therefore, these random procedures play an important role in the course of a case, and should comply with (...) Download Export citation Bookmark 2 citations
Causal inference in biomedical research.Tudor M. Baetu - 2020 - Biology and Philosophy 35 (4):1-19.details Current debates surrounding the virtues and shortcomings of randomization are symptomatic of a lack of appreciation of the fact that causation can be inferred by two distinct inference methods, each requiring its own, specific experimental design. There is a non-statistical type of inference associated with controlled experiments in basic biomedical research; and a statistical variety associated with randomized controlled trials in clinical research. I argue that the main difference between the two hinges on the satisfaction of the comparability requirement, which (...) Download Export citation Bookmark 5 citations
What’s in a gold standard? In defence of randomised controlled trials.Marius Backmann - 2017 - Medicine, Health Care and Philosophy 20 (4):513-523.details The standardised randomised clinical trial (RCT) has been exceedingly popular in medical research, economics, and practical policy making. Recently, RCTs have faced criticism. First, it has been argued by John Worrall that we cannot be certain that our sample is not atypical with regard to possible confounding factors. I will argue that at least in the case of medical research, we know enough about the relevant causal mechanisms to be justified to ignore a number of factors we have good reason (...) Download Export citation Bookmark 2 citations
(1 other version)Hunting side effects and explaining them: should we reverse evidence hierarchies upside down? [REVIEW]Barbara Osimani - 2013 - Journal of Evaluation in Clinical Practice (2):1-18.details The problem of collecting, analyzing and evaluating evidence on adverse drug reactions (ADRs) is an example of the more general class of epistemological problems related to scientific inference and prediction, as well as a central problem of the health-care practice. Philosophical discussions have critically analysed the methodological pitfalls and epistemological implications of evidence assessment in medicine, however they have mainly focused on evidence of treatment efficacy. Most of this work is devoted to statistical methods of causal inference with a special (...) Download Export citation Bookmark 15 citations
On the necessity for random sampling.D. J. Johnstone - 1989 - British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 40 (4):443-457.details Download Export citation Bookmark 2 citations
(1 other version)Hunting Side Effects and Explaining Them: Should We Reverse Evidence Hierarchies Upside Down?Barbara Osimani - 2014 - Topoi 33 (2):295-312.details Philosophical discussions have critically analysed the methodological pitfalls and epistemological implications of evidence assessment in medicine, however they have mainly focused on evidence of treatment efficacy. Most of this work is devoted to statistical methods of causal inference with a special attention to the privileged role assigned to randomized controlled trials (RCTs) in evidence based medicine. Regardless of whether the RCT’s privilege holds for efficacy assessment, it is nevertheless important to make a distinction between causal inference of intended and unintended (...) Download Export citation Bookmark 14 citations
(1 other version)Evidence‐Based Medicine Can’t Be….Adam La Caze - 2008 - Social Epistemology 22 (4):353 – 370.details Evidence-based medicine (EBM) puts forward a hierarchy of evidence for informing therapeutic decisions. An unambiguous interpretation of how to apply EBM's hierarchy has not been provided in the clinical literature. However, as much as an interpretation is provided proponents suggest a categorical interpretation. The categorical interpretation holds that all the results of randomised trials always trump evidence from lower down the hierarchy when it comes to informing therapeutic decisions. Most of the critical replies to EBM react to this interpretation. While (...) Download Export citation Bookmark 11 citations

1