Causation in evidence‐based medicine: in reply to S trand and P arkkinen

Abstract S trand and P arkkinen criticize our dispositional account of causation in evidence‐based medicine for failing to provide a proper epistemology of causal knowledge. In particular, they claim that we do not explain how causal inferences should be drawn. In response, we point out that disposi...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published inJournal of evaluation in clinical practice Vol. 20; no. 6; pp. 985 - 987
Main Authors Kerry, Roger, Eriksen, Thor E., Noer Lie, Svein A., Mumford, Stephen, Anjum, Rani L.
Format Journal Article
LanguageEnglish
Published 01.12.2014
Online AccessGet full text

Cover

More Information
Summary:Abstract S trand and P arkkinen criticize our dispositional account of causation in evidence‐based medicine for failing to provide a proper epistemology of causal knowledge. In particular, they claim that we do not explain how causal inferences should be drawn. In response, we point out that dispositionalism does indeed have an account of the epistemology of causation, including counterfactual dependence, intervention, prediction and clinical decision. Furthermore, we argue that this is an epistemology that fits better with the known fallibility of even our best‐informed predictions. Predictions are made on the basis that causes dispose or tend towards their effects, rather than guarantee them. The ontology of causation remains a valuable study for, among other reasons, it tells us that powers do not always combine additively. This counts against the monocausality that is tested by randomized controlled trials.
ISSN:1356-1294
1365-2753
DOI:10.1111/jep.12189