Skip to content
Carmelics
TopicsThinkersChangesContributorsLoading account…

    Carmelics

    A reasoning platform. Break down any belief into clear reasons, explore both sides, and weigh the evidence honestly.

    Navigate

    • Topics
    • Search
    • Recent Changes
    • Contribute
    • How It Works
    • Glossary
    • Thinkers
    • Contributors
    • About
    • Statistics
    • Terms
    • Privacy

    Database

    Statements
    —
    Perspectives
    —
    Topics
    —

    Press ? for keyboard shortcuts

    LoyalLoyalJusticeJustice
    Made withinDC&Austin
    Statements
    321,452
    Perspectives
    108,905
    Topics
    42
    Home/Original/inverse
    See Original
    Inverse View

    It is not the case that Randomization is sufficient but not necessary to control selection bias.

    ?Set your confidence on the premises below to see your aggregate.

    Reasons For

    2 perspectives
    Reason for 1 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Non-random allocation by protocol cannot eliminate unknown confounders that researchers have not yet identified as relevant variables.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Randomization's epistemic virtue lies precisely in distributing unrecognized confounders equally across groups, a property no protocol-based matching can guarantee.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Fisher's foundational argument in 'The Design of Experiments' (1935) grounds causal inference in randomization's probability structure, not researcher intent.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reason for 2 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Selection bias encompasses systematic differences arising from any non-random process, including well-intentioned matching on observable characteristics.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Matching and protocol-based allocation presuppose a complete causal model, making them epistemically circular when the causal structure is precisely what is under investigation.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    1 perspective
    Reason against
    ?
    • 1.Selection bias requires only that treatment assignment be free from researcher influence over outcomes.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Non-random allocation by strict protocol can prevent researcher-driven imbalance between groups.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Allocation by non-experts unrelated to treatment development removes expectation-driven bias.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Next step

    Based on where you are in your exploration

    Strongest counterpoint
    Explore the most compelling reason on the other side.