Jump to ContentJump to Main Navigation
Philosophy of Science MattersThe Philosophy of Peter Achinstein$
Users without a subscription are not able to see the full content.

Gregory J. Morgan

Print publication date: 2011

Print ISBN-13: 9780199738625

Published to Oxford Scholarship Online: May 2011

DOI: 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199738625.001.0001

Show Summary Details
Page of

PRINTED FROM OXFORD SCHOLARSHIP ONLINE (www.oxfordscholarship.com). (c) Copyright Oxford University Press, 2017. All Rights Reserved. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a monograph in OSO for personal use (for details see http://www.oxfordscholarship.com/page/privacy-policy).date: 19 August 2017

Evidence, External Validity, and Explanatory Relevance

Evidence, External Validity, and Explanatory Relevance

Chapter:
(p.15) 2 Evidence, External Validity, and Explanatory Relevance
Source:
Philosophy of Science Matters
Author(s):

Nancy Cartwright (Contributor Webpage)

Publisher:
Oxford University Press
DOI:10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199738625.003.0002

Evidence-based policy commends randomized controlled trials (RCTs) as gold-standard evidence for predictions about whether policies will “work” (so-called “effectiveness predictions”), and largely because RCTs establish causal conclusions without need for theory. But what makes RCTs evidence for effectiveness at all? A usual label for this problem, “external validity,” conceals a host of problems and a productive answer. This chapter employs Achinstein's formula, “evidential relevance = explanatory relevance,” to argue that the evidential relevance of an RCT to an effectiveness prediction is conditional. If the effect in question is governed by the same causal laws in the RCT and in the target, these laws could explain the effect in both, thus securing the explanatory relevance of the RCT result to the effectiveness prediction. But the explanation, and in consequence the evidential relevance, is conditional on (a) sharing these causal laws and (b) the target possessing the requisite auxiliary factors that call the shared laws into play. Finding the requisite auxiliaries involves what this chapter calls “horizontal search”; finding shared laws, if they exist at all, involves “vertical search”: locating or creating the right kind and level of abstraction. Both generally require a great deal of theory, which RCT advocates had hoped to avoid.

Keywords:   RCT, randomized controlled trial, external validity, evidential relevance, explanatory relevance, horizontal search, vertical search, abstraction, theory, Peter Achinstein

Oxford Scholarship Online requires a subscription or purchase to access the full text of books within the service. Public users can however freely search the site and view the abstracts and keywords for each book and chapter.

Please, subscribe or login to access full text content.

If you think you should have access to this title, please contact your librarian.

To troubleshoot, please check our FAQs , and if you can't find the answer there, please contact us .