The Confounding Question of Confounding Causes in Randomized Trials

Download Edit this record How to cite View on PhilPapers
It is sometimes thought that randomized study group allocation is uniquely proficient at producing comparison groups that are evenly balanced for all confounding causes. Philosophers have argued that in real randomized controlled trials this balance assumption typically fails. But is the balance assumption an important ideal? I run a thought experiment, the CONFOUND study, to answer this question. I then suggest a new account of causal inference in ideal and real comparative group studies that helps clarify the roles of confounding variables and randomization. 1Confounders and Causes2The Balance Assumption3The CONFOUND Study 3.1CONFOUND 13.2CONFOUND 24Disjunction C and the Ideal Study 4.1The ultimate ‘other cause’: C4.2The ideal comparative group study4.3Required conditions for causal inference5Confounders as Causes, Confounders as Correlates6Summary
No keywords specified (fix it)
PhilPapers/Archive ID
Revision history
Archival date: 2018-01-26
View upload history
References found in this work BETA
Causality.Pearl, Judea
Causation, Prediction, and Search.Spirtes, Peter; Glymour, Clark & Scheines, Richard
Causality: Models, Reasoning and Inference.Hitchcock, Christopher & Pearl, Judea

View all 29 references / Add more references

Citations of this work BETA

No citations found.

Add more citations

Added to PP index

Total views
311 ( #10,202 of 41,458 )

Recent downloads (6 months)
73 ( #7,252 of 41,458 )

How can I increase my downloads?

Downloads since first upload
This graph includes both downloads from PhilArchive and clicks to external links.