Peter Urbach has argued, on Bayesian grounds, that experimental randomization serves no useful purpose in testing causal hypothesis. I maintain that he fails to distinguish general issues of statistical inference from specific problems involved in identifying causes. I concede the general Bayesian thesis that random sampling is inessential to sound statistical inference. But experimental randomization is a different matter, and often plays an essential role in our route to causal conclusions.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
David Papineau (1994) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 2 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: