The epistemic status of randomized trials versus observational studies
The supposed superiority of randomized over non-randomized studies is used to justify claims about therapeutic effectiveness of medical interventions and also inclusion criteria for many systematic reviews. However, the view that randomized trials provide better evidence has been
challenged by philosophers of science. In addition, empirical evidence for average differences between randomized trials and observational studies (which we would expect if one method were superior) have proven difficult to find. In this paper we review the controversy surrounding the relative merits of randomized trials and observational studies.

Core reading: Howick and Mebius [forthcoming]
Date: 27 October 2015, 16:30
Venue: All Souls College, High Street OX1 4AL
Venue Details: Hovenden Room
Speakers: Professor Alexander Bird (Faculty of Philosophy, University of Oxford), Dr Jeremy Howick (Nuffield Dept. of Primary Care Health Sciences, University of Oxford.)
Organising department: Nuffield Department of Primary Care Health Sciences
Organiser contact email address: jeremy.howick@phc.ox.ac.uk
Part of: Topics in the philosophy of medicine
Topics:
Booking required?: Not required
Audience: Members of the University only
Editor: Dan Richards-Doran