Causal criteria and counterfactuals; nothing more (or less) than scientific common sense

• Main Authors: Goodman Karen J, Phillips Carl V
• Format: Article
• Language: English
• Published: BMC 2006-05-01
• Series: Emerging Themes in Epidemiology
• Online Access: http://www.ete-online.com/content/3/1/5

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Two persistent myths in epidemiology are that we can use a list of "causal criteria" to provide an algorithmic approach to inferring causation and that a modern "counterfactual model" can assist in the same endeavor. We argue that these are neither criteria nor a model, but that lists of causal <it>considerations </it>and formalizations of the counterfactual <it>definition </it>of causation are nevertheless useful tools for promoting scientific thinking. They set us on the path to the common sense of scientific inquiry, including testing hypotheses (really putting them to a test, not just calculating simplistic statistics), responding to the Duhem-Quine problem, and avoiding many common errors. Austin Bradford Hill's famous considerations are thus both over-interpreted by those who would use them as criteria and under-appreciated by those who dismiss them as flawed. Similarly, formalizations of counterfactuals are under-appreciated as lessons in basic scientific thinking. The need for lessons in scientific common sense is great in epidemiology, which is taught largely as an engineering discipline and practiced largely as technical tasks, making attention to core principles of scientific inquiry woefully rare.</p>