File spoon-archives/bhaskar.archive/bhaskar_2002/bhaskar.0202, message 57


Date: Wed, 6 Feb 2002 17:38:19 -0800 (PST)
From: Andrew Mearman <ajmearman-AT-yahoo.com>
Subject: RE: BHA: RE: cr and social science



Doesn't randomisation imply closure, simply by
*assuming* that the sample *is* random?  What is the
basis for assuming such a probability distribution?

Andrew


--- Marshall Feldman <marsh-AT-uri.edu> wrote:
> Hi all,
> 
> Tone makes an excellent point. I don't think the
> prevalence of randomization
> in biomedical research is a problem for CR because
> these studies are not
> designed to uncover causal mechanisms. Instead,
> they're designed to
> determine the effects of a drug (rather than how the
> drug causes those
> affects). This seems legitimate but superficial.
> Without knowing the causal
> mechanisms, we can only hope our luck holds out
> using the drug in the future
> (the problem of induction).
> 
> The whole issue of randomization raises some other
> interesting questions.
> One is whether or not randomization is a viable way
> to achieve closure.
> Although it does not close the experiment by
> eliminating confounding causes,
> it may make these causes cancel out so that we can
> say the experimental
> manipulation is "quasi-closed" (i.e., the observed
> effects are only those of
> the manipulated causes). This doesn't bring us
> closer to uncovering
> mechanisms or necessity, and perhaps the most
> damning aspect of the
> literature on experimental design for social and
> behavioral science is its
> over-emphasis on effects and quasi-closure coupled
> with its almost complete
> blindness to questions of how we study mechanisms
> and the structure by which
> things necessarily achieve their causal powers.
> 
> The issue also brings up the question of random
> sampling, which aims to
> obtain "representative" samples. It too ignores
> mechanisms. This question,
> however, raises questions not only with
> experimentation in the social
> sciences, but also statistical analysis.
> 
> 	Marsh
> 
> 	Dr. Marshall Feldman, Associate Professor
> 	Department of Community Planning and Landscape
> Architecture
> 	94 West Alumni Avenue, Suite 1
> 	204 Rodman Hall
> 	The University of Rhode Island
> 	Kingston, Rhode Island 02881-0815
> 
> 	Tel.	401.874.5953
> 	Fax	401.874.5511
> 	Email:   marsh-AT-uri.edu
> 	http://www.uri.edu/cels/cpl/marsh.html
> 
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: owner-bhaskar-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu
> >
> [mailto:owner-bhaskar-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu]On
> Behalf Of Tone
> > Skinningsrud
> > Sent: Tuesday, February 05, 2002 8:00 AM
> > To: bhaskar-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu
> > Subject: Re: BHA: RE: cr and social science
> >
> >
> > Dear Fredrik, and others,
> >
> > To adress your last question first:
> > randomisation (i.e. randomised experiments), as
> far as I know, is an
> > experimental procedure used specifically in the
> social (and psychological)
> > sciences. The rationale for this procedure,
> according to a
> > leading theorist
> > in experimental and quasi-experimental
> methodology, Donald T. Campbell, is
> > to enable the experimenter to assess the effects
> of different treatments
> > completely independent of the prior status of the 
> object (persons etc)
> > under study.
> >
> > This rationale seems to be consistent with a
> Humean, i.e. contingent,
> > conception of causality which seeks conjunctions
> of events - correlations
> > between impact and result, regardeless of the
> internal structure of the
> > object being studied. This rationale is not
> consistent with a
> > conception of
> > causality as the necessary relationship between
> events, which
> > would make us
> > interesed in studying how objects with certain
> properties react
> > to specific
> > (adequate) treatments. Thus, Campbell's idea of
> the randomised experiment
> > is quite different from Bhaskar's definition of
> the experiment, which you
> > quoted in your article in 'Hften fr kritiska
> studier' - which emphasises
> > the purpose of releasing and studying a specific
> type of mechanism in
> > isolation.
> >
> > I see the rationale of the randomised experiment
> as contrary to basic
> > assumptions in critical realism, specifically the
> conception of causality.
> > One does not get closer to isolating the operation
> of one mechanism by
> > disregarding (or randomising)the properties of the
> objects under study.
> > And, by the way, Piaget did not use randomised
> experiments. He just
> > experimented with his own children.
> >
> > I find the theoretical reasons for rejecting
> randomised experiments
> > convincing, however, it is a dilemma that a large
> part of medical
> > (pharmaceutical and clinical) research is based on
> this methodology, as
> > well as certain psychological disciplines. May be
> each experiment would
> > have to be scrutinised to see whether it is
> designed to reveal mechanisms
> > rather than correlations.
> >
> > Tone
> >
> >
> >
> > At 22:16 04.02.02 +0100, you wrote:
> > >Hi
> > >
> > >My interpretation has always been that
> experiments are imposible in the
> > >social sciences only beacause of practical and
> ethical reasons,
> > and that we
> > >therfore have to wait for sittuation where there
> are reasons to
> > belive one
> > >or a few mechanisms are dominant, such as crises.
> But my
> > interpretation may
> > >be wrong for subjective reasons.
> > >
> > >Then there is the question whether there are any
> example of closed
> > >experiments at all? (Isnt it therfore we use
> randomisation ;-)
> > >
> > >Best,
> > >
> > >Fredrik
> > >
> > >
> > >     --- from list
> bhaskar-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu ---
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >      --- from list
> bhaskar-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu ---
> >
> 
> 
> 
>      --- from list
> bhaskar-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu ---


__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Send FREE Valentine eCards with Yahoo! Greetings!
http://greetings.yahoo.com


     --- from list bhaskar-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu ---

   

Driftline Main Page

 

Display software: ArchTracker © Malgosia Askanas, 2000-2005