Many of you would have been aware of the increasing use of randomised evaluations in Social Science research and for public policy reasons. Taking an epistemological look, I give a robust argument on why the claims of randomised evaluations actually evade the problem of induction. Hope to get your thoughts. Thanks in advance !
The usage of randomised evaluations in
social inquiry has been recent and responses to them have been wide ranging.
Some have described it as the “gold standard” in empirical research, (Duflo,
Glennerster,&Kremer, 2006) while others though have been more critical of
their value in making predictions. (Deaton, 2009)
(REs) seek to make predictions on the impact of an
intervention, when it is attempted in a new situation. REs work by first
determining the impact of the intervention. Subsequently, for the new situation
it is expected that the impact would be similar.
To determine an intervention’s impact, numerous subjects are ... (read more)