Kevin isn’t on here so I can’t ask him, but I think he’s just turning a party line is causal inference back on itself. I have heard many times that RCTs lack external validity by fiat.
Kevin isn’t on here so I can’t ask him, but I think he’s just turning a party line is causal inference back on itself. I have heard many times that RCTs lack external validity by fiat.
The problem for me is not whether RCTs have external validity or not but whether that's required for something to be considered a research method. What would we have left then if we expect every method to tick every box?
Hah, he’s doing a funny inversion: his definition of research comes from this government website that defines human subject research www.ecfr.gov/current/titl... 1/x
He then goes on to argue about impediments created by IRBs. 2/2
Which leaves me somewhat unimpressed and unconvinced. Even if it may be *technically* correct under that particular definition, why should that matter?