{"title":"为什么随机对照试验是黄金标准？随机实验与观察性研究的认识论差异。","authors":"Christopher Harshaw","doi":"10.1353/obs.2025.a956840","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>In response to Pearl, Aronow et al. (2025) argue that randomized experiments are special among causal inference methods due to their statistical properties. I believe that the key distinction between randomized experiments and observational studies is not statistical, but rather epistemological in nature. In this comment, I aim to articulate this epistemological distinction and argue that it ought to take a more central role in these discussions.</p>","PeriodicalId":74335,"journal":{"name":"Observational studies","volume":"11 1","pages":"41-46"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2025-04-11","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12139715/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Why are RCTs the Gold Standard? The Epistemological Difference Between Randomized Experiments and Observational Studies.\",\"authors\":\"Christopher Harshaw\",\"doi\":\"10.1353/obs.2025.a956840\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>In response to Pearl, Aronow et al. (2025) argue that randomized experiments are special among causal inference methods due to their statistical properties. I believe that the key distinction between randomized experiments and observational studies is not statistical, but rather epistemological in nature. In this comment, I aim to articulate this epistemological distinction and argue that it ought to take a more central role in these discussions.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":74335,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Observational studies\",\"volume\":\"11 1\",\"pages\":\"41-46\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-04-11\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12139715/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Observational studies\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1353/obs.2025.a956840\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2025/1/1 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"eCollection\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Observational studies","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1353/obs.2025.a956840","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2025/1/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
Why are RCTs the Gold Standard? The Epistemological Difference Between Randomized Experiments and Observational Studies.
In response to Pearl, Aronow et al. (2025) argue that randomized experiments are special among causal inference methods due to their statistical properties. I believe that the key distinction between randomized experiments and observational studies is not statistical, but rather epistemological in nature. In this comment, I aim to articulate this epistemological distinction and argue that it ought to take a more central role in these discussions.
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：
京公网安备 11010802042870号
