by RCTs — gold standard or monster? One important comment, repeated — but not unanimously — can perhaps be summarized as ‘All that said and done, RCTs are still generally the best that can be done in estimating average treatment effects and in warranting causal conclusions.’ It is this claim that is the monster that seemingly can never be killed, no matter how many stakes are driven through its heart. We strongly endorse Robert Sampson’s statement “That experiments have no special place in the hierarchy of scientific evidence seems to me to be clear.” Experiments are sometimes the best that can be done, but they are often not. Hierarchies that privilege RCTs over any other evidence irrespective of context or quality are indefensible and can lead to harmful
Topics:
Lars Pålsson Syll considers the following as important: Theory of Science & Methodology
This could be interesting, too:
Lars Pålsson Syll writes Kausalitet — en crash course
Lars Pålsson Syll writes Randomization and causal claims
Lars Pålsson Syll writes Race and sex as causes
Lars Pålsson Syll writes Randomization — a philosophical device gone astray
RCTs — gold standard or monster?
One important comment, repeated — but not unanimously — can perhaps be summarized as ‘All that said and done, RCTs are still generally the best that can be done in estimating average treatment effects and in warranting causal conclusions.’ It is this claim that is the monster that seemingly can never be killed, no matter how many stakes are driven through its heart. We strongly endorse Robert Sampson’s statement “That experiments have no special place in the hierarchy of scientific evidence seems to me to be clear.” Experiments are sometimes the best that can be done, but they are often not. Hierarchies that privilege RCTs over any other evidence irrespective of context or quality are indefensible and can lead to harmful policies. Different methods have different relative advantages and disadvantages.