↓ Skip to main content

Causal criteria and counterfactuals; nothing more (or less) than scientific common sense

Overview of attention for article published in Emerging Themes in Epidemiology, May 2006
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (69th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
3 X users
wikipedia
2 Wikipedia pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
57 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
104 Mendeley
citeulike
1 CiteULike
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Causal criteria and counterfactuals; nothing more (or less) than scientific common sense
Published in
Emerging Themes in Epidemiology, May 2006
DOI 10.1186/1742-7622-3-5
Pubmed ID
Authors

Carl V Phillips, Karen J Goodman

Abstract

Two persistent myths in epidemiology are that we can use a list of "causal criteria" to provide an algorithmic approach to inferring causation and that a modern "counterfactual model" can assist in the same endeavor. We argue that these are neither criteria nor a model, but that lists of causal considerations and formalizations of the counterfactual definition of causation are nevertheless useful tools for promoting scientific thinking. They set us on the path to the common sense of scientific inquiry, including testing hypotheses (really putting them to a test, not just calculating simplistic statistics), responding to the Duhem-Quine problem, and avoiding many common errors. Austin Bradford Hill's famous considerations are thus both over-interpreted by those who would use them as criteria and under-appreciated by those who dismiss them as flawed. Similarly, formalizations of counterfactuals are under-appreciated as lessons in basic scientific thinking. The need for lessons in scientific common sense is great in epidemiology, which is taught largely as an engineering discipline and practiced largely as technical tasks, making attention to core principles of scientific inquiry woefully rare.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 104 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Brazil 2 2%
United States 2 2%
Chile 1 <1%
South Africa 1 <1%
Saudi Arabia 1 <1%
United Kingdom 1 <1%
Spain 1 <1%
Belgium 1 <1%
Unknown 94 90%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 17 16%
Researcher 15 14%
Other 12 12%
Student > Master 11 11%
Student > Bachelor 6 6%
Other 29 28%
Unknown 14 13%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 32 31%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 14 13%
Nursing and Health Professions 9 9%
Psychology 7 7%
Veterinary Science and Veterinary Medicine 5 5%
Other 20 19%
Unknown 17 16%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 5. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 24 December 2022.
All research outputs
#6,923,376
of 25,051,161 outputs
Outputs from Emerging Themes in Epidemiology
#66
of 152 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#23,871
of 79,060 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Emerging Themes in Epidemiology
#2
of 2 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,051,161 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 72nd percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 152 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 14.3. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 55% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 79,060 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 69% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 2 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one.