Hostname: page-component-84b7d79bbc-g7rbq Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-08-01T15:18:23.269Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

A Reply to Mayo's Criticisms of Urbach's “Randomization and the Design of Experiments”

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 April 2022

Peter Urbach
Peter Urbach*
Affiliation:
Department of Philosophy, Logic and Scientific Method, The London School of Economics
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Mayo (1987) sought to discredit Urbach's (1985) arguments against randomization as a universal requirement in clinical and agricultural trials. The present reply rebuts Mayo's criticisms.

Type
Discussion
Information
Philosophy of Science , Volume 58 , Issue 1 , March 1991 , pp. 125 - 128
Copyright
Copyright © 1991 The Philosophy of Science Association

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Howson, C. and Urbach, P. (1989), Scientific Reasoning: The Bayesian Approach. La Salle, Ill.: Open Court Publishing Company.Google Scholar
Kendall, M. G. and Stuart, A. (1983), The Advanced Theory of Statistics, vol. 3. 4th ed. London: Charles Griffen and Company.Google Scholar
Mayo, O. (1987), “Discussion: Comments on ‘Randomization and the Design of Experiments’ by P. Urbach”, Philosophy of Science 54: 592–596.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Urbach, P. (1985), “Randomization and the Design of Experiments”, Philosophy of Science 52: 256–273.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Urbach, P. (1987), “Clinical Trial and Random Error”, New Scientist 116: 52–55.Google ScholarPubMed