Abstract

This chapter examines the implications of clinical research for philosophical discussions of inductive risk, focusing on three methodological debates: (1) the necessity of randomization, (2) the distinction between explanatory and pragmatic trials, and (3) the use of placebo versus active controls. All of these debates can usefully be recast in terms of inductive risk, which raises several important implications for philosophical discussion. They show that consideration of inductive risk, first, need not involve a straightforward trade-off between the consequences of false positive versus false negative results, and, second, should address what kind of evidence is needed before accepting a hypothesis, in addition to how much evidence is needed. Moreover, they show that evidence itself is shaped by non-epistemic values, which complicates the issue of distinguishing between direct and indirect roles for values.