Premium
Causation in evidence‐based medicine: in reply to S trand and P arkkinen
Author(s) -
Kerry Roger,
Eriksen Thor E.,
Noer Lie Svein A.,
Mumford Stephen,
Anjum Rani L.
Publication year - 2014
Publication title -
journal of evaluation in clinical practice
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 0.737
H-Index - 73
eISSN - 1365-2753
pISSN - 1356-1294
DOI - 10.1111/jep.12189
Subject(s) - causation , counterfactual thinking , epistemology , ontology , causal inference , causality (physics) , counterfactual conditional , psychology , philosophy , medicine , physics , pathology , quantum mechanics
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.