- establishing causation normally requires establishing that the putative cause and effect are both appropriately correlated and connected by an appropriate mechanism;
- so when assessing causation, one should evaluate both association studies and mechanistic studies, where available.
For a quick introduction to Evidential Pluralism and its applications, see
Focus on Evidential Pluralism, The Reasoner 15(6), 2021.
Evidential Pluralism applied to the social sciences
For an introduction, see
Yafeng Shan and Jon Williamson: Applying Evidential Pluralism to the social sciences, European Journal for the Philosophy of Science 11(4):96, 2021. . doi: 10.1007/s13194-021-00415-z
For more detail see the research project
Evidential pluralism in the social sciences (Leverhulme Trust 2019-22)
For some motivation, see
For an overview of the EBM+ programme, see
Veli-Pekka Parkkinen, Christian Wallmann, Michael Wilde, Brendan Clarke, Phyllis Illari, Michael P. Kelly, Charles Norell, Federica Russo, Beth Shaw and Jon Williamson: Evaluating evidence of mechanisms in medicine: Principles and procedures, Springer, 2018.
Some recent papers include:
- Daniel Auker-Howlett and Jon Williamson: Vaccination uptake interventions: an EBM+ approach, Argumenta 7(1): 79-96, 2021. . doi: 10.14275/2465-2334/202113.auk
- Jeffrey K. Aronson, Daniel Auker-Howlett, Virginia Ghiara, Michael P. Kelly and Jon Williamson: The use of mechanistic reasoning in assessing coronavirus interventions, Journal of Evaluation in Clinical Practice 27(3): 684-693, 2021. . doi: 10.1111/jep.13438
- Jon Williamson: The feasibility and malleability of EBM+, Theoria 36(2):191-209, 2021. doi: 10.1387/theoria.21244
For more detail, see the research projects:
- Evaluating evidence in medicine (AHRC 2015-18)
- Grading evidence of mechanisms in physics and biology (Leverhulme Trust 2015-18)
- Mechanisms and the evidence hierarchy (AHRC 2012)