The Similarity of Causal Inference in Experimental and Non-experimental Studies.

For nearly as long as the word 'correlation' has been part of statistical parlance, students have been warned that correlation does not prove causation, and that only experimental studies, e.g., randomized clinical trials, can establish the existence of a causal relationship. Over the last few decad...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Publicado en:Philosophy of Science Vol. 72; no. 5; pp. 927 - 941
Autor principal: Scheines, Richard
Formato: Artículo
Publicado: Cambridge University Press Dec2005
Materias:
Acceso en línea:Ver este registro en EBSCOhost
fields @attributes:
  recordID: 1
pdfLink:
plink: https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=hlh&AN=24277125&site=ehost-live
header:
  @attributes:
    shortDbName: hlh
    uiTerm: 24277125
    longDbName: Humanities International Complete
    uiTag: AN
  controlInfo:
    bkinfo:
    jinfo:
      jid:
        00318248
        PSC
      jtl: Philosophy of Science
      issn: 00318248
      maglogo: N
    pubinfo:
      dt: Dec2005
      vid: 72
      iid: 5
      pid: 15979
      pub: Cambridge University Press
    artinfo:
      ui:
        24277125
        10.1086/508950
      ppf: 927
      ppct: 14
      formats:
        fmt:
          @attributes:
            type: P
            size: 765KB
      tig:
        atl: The Similarity of Causal Inference in Experimental and Non-experimental Studies.
      aug:
        au: Scheines, Richard
        affil: Department of Philosophy, Carnegie Mellon University, Pittsburgh, PA, 15213
      su:
        Clinical trials
        Causation (Philosophy)
        Medical experimentation on humans
        Statisticians
        Computer scientists
        Philosophy of science
      sug:
        subj:
          Clinical trials
          Causation (Philosophy)
          Medical experimentation on humans
          Statisticians
          Computer scientists
          Philosophy of science
      ab: For nearly as long as the word 'correlation' has been part of statistical parlance, students have been warned that correlation does not prove causation, and that only experimental studies, e.g., randomized clinical trials, can establish the existence of a causal relationship. Over the last few decades, somewhat of a consensus has emerged between statisticians, computer scientists, and philosophers on how to represent causal claims and connect them to probabilistic relations. One strand of this work studies the conditions under which evidence accumulated from non-experimental (observational) studies can be used to infer a causal relationship. In this paper, I compare the typical conditions required to infer that one variable is a direct cause of another in observational and experimental studies. I argue that they are essentially the same.
      pubtype: Academic Journal
      doctype: Article
      src: R
    language: English
    refInfo:
    copyright:
      @attributes:
        flag: Y
      custom: Copyright of Philosophy of Science is the property of Cambridge University Press and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites without the copyright holder's express written permission. Additionally, content may not be used with any artificial intelligence tools or machine learning technologies. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use.
      item: Philosophy of Science
      holder: Cambridge University Press
      dt:
        @attributes:
          year: 2005
    holdings:
      @attributes:
        islocal: N