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
    RCTs are not necessary for reliable causal inference — Carmelics
    Statements
    321,452
    Perspectives
    108,905
    Topics
    42
    Home/Causation
    HistoryEditSee Inverse

    RCTs are not necessary for reliable causal inference

    CausationTruth & Knowledge
    ?Rate how convincing each reason is below to see the overall strength.
    0 reasons for
    1 reason against

    Reasons Against

    1 perspective
    Reason against
    ?
    • 1.The label 'gold standard' suggests RCTs are necessary for reliable causal inference
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Philosophers of medicine have argued that the claim RCTs are necessary for reliable causal inference does not hold to scrutiny
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Sign in or register to share your perspective on this statement.

    Topics

    CausationTruth & Knowledge

    Connections

    2 topics

    Next step

    Based on where you are in your exploration

    Strongest counterpoint
    Explore the most compelling reason on the other side.
    Skepticism
    1 linked
    Bioethics1 linked

    Related

    Philosophers of medicine have argued that the claim RCTs are necessary for relia...The label 'gold standard' suggests RCTs are necessary for reliable causal infere...

    Similar

    Philosophers of medicine have argued that the claim RCTs are necessary...84%Correlations need not have causal explanations82%The Second Analogy does not establish that particular causal laws are ...82%The inferences in Scotus's argument from step 4 to 5 and from step 6 t...80%

    Source

    AI-extracted1/3 agreementValid
    SEP: medicine
    View source passageHide passage
    No one denies that RCTs are powerful experimental designs—and that their power stems from the ability to control numerous sources of bias and confounding. However, to refer to RCTs as the “gold standard” of evidence suggests that they are more. Specifically, one may be led to assume that RCTs are necessary for reliable causal inference or that RCTs are guaranteed to deliver reliable results. A number of philosophers of medicine have in the past decade or so argued that these stronger claims do n
    Extraction notes

    Validity: Extracted via Max plan + API grounding/validity checks

    Details

    Type
    claim
    Perspectives
    1 (0 for, 1 against)
    Edits
    1 edit