(// Edit via Wikitext Extension for VSCode) Tag: Reverted |
(// via Wikitext Extension for VSCode) |
||
| (27 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown) | |||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
{{Cover|7.1 Causation, Blame, and Policy}} | |||
Real-world decision making must consider more than whether a randomized controlled trial says one variable causes another. In some legal and policy settings, evidence for singular causation, rather than general causation, plays a bigger role. With the Trolley Problem, we illustrate the powerful omission bias. Students are encouraged to reflect on the interplay between blame and causation in decision making. | |||
== The Lesson in Context == | == The Lesson in Context == | ||
| Line 10: | Line 8: | ||
This course has so far only discussed general causation, which can be demonstrated through randomized controlled trials and to a weaker extent Hill's criteria. But personal, policy, and legal decisions often depend on singular causation as well. It also sometimes matters whether the causation is by commission or by omission. The famous Trolley dilemma is discussed. | This course has so far only discussed general causation, which can be demonstrated through randomized controlled trials and to a weaker extent Hill's criteria. But personal, policy, and legal decisions often depend on singular causation as well. It also sometimes matters whether the causation is by commission or by omission. The famous Trolley dilemma is discussed. | ||
<!-- Expandable section relating this lesson to | <!-- Expandable section relating this lesson to other lessons. --> | ||
{{Expand|Relation to Earlier Lessons | {{Expand|Relation to Other Lessons| | ||
'''Earlier Lessons''' | |||
{{ContextLesson|6.1 Correlation and Causation}} | {{ContextLesson|6.1 Correlation and Causation}} | ||
{{ContextRelation|RCTs only demonstrate general causation but not singular causation. Correlation is also a statistical relationship between two variables, rather than between two singular events.}} | {{ContextRelation|RCTs only demonstrate general causation but not singular causation. Correlation is also a statistical relationship between two variables, rather than between two singular events.}} | ||
{{ContextLesson|6.2 Hill's Criteria}} | {{ContextLesson|6.2 Hill's Criteria}} | ||
{{ContextRelation|As a substitute for RCTs, Hill's criteria also only demonstrate general causation, but can be used in some cases as partial evidence for singular causation (especially plausible mechanism and temporal sequence).}} | {{ContextRelation|As a substitute for RCTs, Hill's criteria also only demonstrate general causation, but can be used in some cases as partial evidence for singular causation (especially plausible mechanism and temporal sequence).}} | ||
}} | {{Line}} | ||
'''Later Lessons''' | |||
{{ContextLesson|8.1 Orders of Understanding}} | {{ContextLesson|8.1 Orders of Understanding}} | ||
{{ContextRelation|Any given effect is brought about by a complex combination of many causes (which may interact with each other), with varying degrees of influence on the outcome. This is true for both singular and general causation.}} | {{ContextRelation|Any given effect is brought about by a complex combination of many causes (which may interact with each other), with varying degrees of influence on the outcome. This is true for both singular and general causation.}} | ||
| Line 24: | Line 22: | ||
{{ContextRelation|The omission bias is one explanation for the status quo bias, in that humans tend to prefer not actively changing the current situation or trend, even when it may be worse than the potential pitfalls of the new outcome.}} | {{ContextRelation|The omission bias is one explanation for the status quo bias, in that humans tend to prefer not actively changing the current situation or trend, even when it may be worse than the potential pitfalls of the new outcome.}} | ||
}} | }} | ||
== Takeaways == | == Takeaways == | ||
| Line 41: | Line 38: | ||
<!-- Definitions must be written with the Definition and Subdefinition templates. The first Definition should have the "first=yes" flag at the end. --> | <!-- Definitions must be written with the Definition and Subdefinition templates. The first Definition should have the "first=yes" flag at the end. --> | ||
{{Definition|Singular Causation|A causal relation between two specific events; ''A'' caused ''B''.|first=yes}} | {{Definition|Singular Causation|A causal relation between two specific events; <math>A</math> caused <math>B</math>.|first=yes}} | ||
{{Definition|General Causation|A causal relation between two variables; ''X'' causes ''Y''.}} | {{Definition|General Causation|A causal relation between two variables; <math>X</math> causes <math>Y</math>.}} | ||
<!-- {{Definition|Singular Causation|A causal relation between two specific events; ''A'' caused ''B''.|first=yes}} --> | |||
<!-- {{Definition|General Causation|A causal relation between two variables; ''X'' causes ''Y''.}} --> | |||
{{Definition|Omission Bias|Omission bias is the tendency to favor an act of omission (inaction) over one of commission (action).}} | {{Definition|Omission Bias|Omission bias is the tendency to favor an act of omission (inaction) over one of commission (action).}} | ||
{{Definition|Status Quo Bias|A preference for the maintenance of a current or previous state of affairs ("status quo" is Latin for "state in which"), or a preference to not undertake any action to change this current or previous state.}} | {{Definition|Status Quo Bias|A preference for the maintenance of a current or previous state of affairs ("status quo" is Latin for "state in which"), or a preference to not undertake any action to change this current or previous state.}} | ||
| Line 59: | Line 58: | ||
<!-- Misconceptions must be written with the Misconception template. The first Misconception should have the "first=yes" flag at the end. --> | <!-- Misconceptions must be written with the Misconception template. The first Misconception should have the "first=yes" flag at the end. --> | ||
{{Misconception|This drug will absolutely cure you, because there was a really big RCT that showed it works for your exact disease!|RCTs can only | {{Misconception|This drug will absolutely cure you, because there was a really big RCT that showed it works for your exact disease!|This quote is incorrect because RCTs can only general singular causation.|first=yes}} | ||
</tabber> | </tabber> | ||
{{#restricted:{{Private:7.1 Causation, Blame, and Policy}}}} | |||
{{NavCard|chapter=Lesson plans|text=All lesson plans|prev=6.2 Hill's Criteria|next=7.2 Emergent Phenomena}} | |||
[[Category:Lesson plans]] | |||
{{ | |||
{ | |||
{{ | |||
= | |||
| | |||
= | |||
Real-world decision making must consider more than whether a randomized controlled trial says one variable causes another. In some legal and policy settings, evidence for singular causation, rather than general causation, plays a bigger role. With the Trolley Problem, we illustrate the powerful omission bias. Students are encouraged to reflect on the interplay between blame and causation in decision making.
This course has so far only discussed general causation, which can be demonstrated through randomized controlled trials and to a weaker extent Hill's criteria. But personal, policy, and legal decisions often depend on singular causation as well. It also sometimes matters whether the causation is by commission or by omission. The famous Trolley dilemma is discussed.
Earlier Lessons
Later Lessons
After this lesson, students should
Singular Causation
General Causation
Omission Bias
Status Quo Bias
Drug Trials
Weather and Climate Change
This drug will absolutely cure you, because there was a really big RCT that showed it works for your exact disease!
You must be logged in to see this content.
