Medicine, Health Care and Philosophy

, Volume 12, Issue 3, pp 333–343 | Cite as

Causal criteria and the problem of complex causation

  • Andrew WardEmail author
Scientific Contribution


Nancy Cartwright begins her recent book, Hunting Causes and Using Them, by noting that while a few years ago real causal claims were in dispute, nowadays “causality is back, and with a vengeance.” In the case of the social sciences, Keith Morrison writes that “Social science asks ‘why?’. Detecting causality or its corollary—prediction—is the jewel in the crown of social science research.” With respect to the health sciences, Judea Pearl writes that the “research questions that motivate most studies in the health sciences are causal in nature.” However, not all data used by people interested in making causal claims come from experiments that use random assignment to control and treatment groups. Indeed, much research in the social and health science depends on non-experimental, observational data. Thus, one of the most important problems in the social and health sciences concerns making warranted causal claims using non-experimental, observational data; viz., “Can observational data be used to make etiological inferences leading to warranted causal claims?” This paper examines one method of warranting causal claims that is especially widespread in epidemiology and the health sciences generally—the use of causal criteria. It is argued that cases of complex causation generally, and redundant causation—both causal overdetermination and causal preemption—specifically, undermine the use of such criteria to warrant causal claims.


Bradford Hill Causal criteria Causal overdetermination Causality Late causal preemption Redundant causation Warranted causal claims 


  1. Bird, Alexander. 1998. The philosophy of science. Montreal: McGill-Queen’s University Press.Google Scholar
  2. Bunzl, Martin. 1979. Causal overdetermination. The Journal of Philosophy 76 (3): 134–150.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Carnap, Rudolf. 1995. An introduction to the philosophy of science. New York, NY: Dover Publications, Inc.Google Scholar
  4. Cartwright, Nancy. 1983. How the laws of physics lie. Oxford: Clarendon Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Cartwright, Nancy. 2002. Nature’s capacities and their measurement. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
  6. Cartwright, Nancy. 2007a. Counterfactuals in economics: A commentary. In Causation and explanation, ed. Joseph Keim Campbell, Michael O’Rourke, and Harry Silverstein, 191–216. Cambridge, MA: Bradford Books/MIT Press.Google Scholar
  7. Cartwright, Nancy. 2007b. Hunting causes and using them. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  8. Chalmers, A.F. 1999. What is this thing called science?, 3rd ed. Indianapolis, IN: Hackett Publishing Co.Google Scholar
  9. Cobb, George W., and David S. Moore. 1997. Mathematics, statistics, and teaching. The American Mathematical Monthly 104 (9): 801–823.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. DeMets, David L. 2002. Clinical trials in the new millennium. Statistics in Medicine 21 (19): 2779–2787.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Eells, Ellery. 2001. Probabilistic causality. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  12. Eells, Ellery, and Elliott Sober. 1983. Probabilistic causality and the question of transitivity. Philosophy of Science 50 (1): 35–57.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Egilman, David, Joyce Kim, and Molly Biklen. 2003. Proving causation: The use and abuse of medical and scientific evidence Inside the courtroom—an epidemiologist’s critique of the judicial interpretation of the Daubert ruling. Food and Drug Law Journal 58: 223–250.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. Ehring, Douglas. 1997. Causation and persistence: A theory of causation. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  15. Environmental Protection Agency. 2005. Guidelines for carcinogen risk assessment—EPA/630/P-03/001f. Washington, DC: Risk Assessment Forum, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.Google Scholar
  16. Field, Hartry. 2005. Causation in a physical world. In The Oxford handbook of metaphysics, ed. Michael J. Loux and Dean W. Zimmerman, 435–460. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  17. Fletcher, Robert H., and Suzanne W. Fletcher. 2005. Clinical epidemiology: The essentials, 4th ed. Philadelphia, PA: Lippincott, Williams and Wilkins.Google Scholar
  18. Franco, Eduardo L., Pelayo Correa, Regina M. Santella, Xifeng Wu, Steven N. Goodman, and Gloria M. Petersen. 2004. Role and limitations of epidemiology in establishing a causal association. Seminars in Cancer Biology 14 (6): 413–426.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Freedman, David A. 1999. From association to causation: Some remarks on the history of statistics. Statistical Science 14 (3): 243–258.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Gehlert, Sarah, Dana Sohmer, Tina Sacks, Charles Mininger, Martha McClintock, and Olufunmilayo Olopade. 2008. Targeting health disparities: A model linking upstream determinants to downstream interventions. Health Affairs 27 (2): 339–349.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Goldthorpe, John H. 2001. Causation, statistics, and sociology. European Sociological Review 17 (1): 1–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Goodman, Karen J., and Carl V. Phillips. 2004. Hill criteria of causation. Online at
  23. Granger, C.W.J. 1980. Testing for causality: A personal viewpoint. Journal of Economic Dynamics and Control 2: 329–352.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Greenland, Sander. 1990. Randomization, statistics, and causal inference. Epidemiology 1 (6): 421–429.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Greenland, Sander. 2004. An overview of methods for causal inference from observational studies. In Applied Bayesian modeling and causal inference from incomplete-data perspectives, ed. Andrew Gelman and Xiao-Li Meng, 3–13. West Sussex: John Wiley and Sons.Google Scholar
  26. Hall, Ned. 2004. Two concepts of causation. In Causation and counterfactuals, ed. John Collins, Ned Hall, and L.A. Paul, 225–276. Cambridge, MA: Bradford Books/MIT Press.Google Scholar
  27. Hatch, Maureen C., and Zena A. Stein. 1986. Agent orange and risks to reproduction: The limits of epidemiology. Teratogenesis, Carcinogenesis, and Mutagenesis 6 (3): 185–202.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Hausman, Daniel M. 1998. Causal asymmetries. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  29. Hausman, Daniel M. 2005. Causal relata: Tokens, types, or variables? Erkenntnis 63: 33–54.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Hempel, Carl G. 1965. Confirmation, induction, and rational belief. In Aspects of scientific explanation and other essays in the philosophy of science, 3–46. New York, NY: The Free Press.Google Scholar
  31. Hennekens, Charles H., and Julie E. Buring. 1987. Epidemiology in medicine. Philadelphia, PA: Lippincott Williams and Wilkins.Google Scholar
  32. Hernán, M.A. 2004. A definition of causal effect for epidemiological research. Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health 58: 265–271.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Hill, Austin Bradford. 1965. The environment and disease: Association or causation? Proceedings of the Royal Society of Medicine 58: 295–300.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  34. Hitchcock, Christopher. 1995. The mishap at Reichenbach fall: Singular vs. general causation. Philosophical Studies 78: 257–291.Google Scholar
  35. Hitchcock, Christopher. 2003. Of humean bondage. The British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 54: 1–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Hitchcock, Christopher. 2007. Prevention, preemption, and the principle of sufficient reason. The Philosophical Review 116 (4): 495–532.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Holland, Paul W. 1986. Statistics and causal inference. Journal of the American Statistical Association 81 (396): 945–960.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Holt, R.I.G., and R.C. Peveler. 2006. Antipsychotic drugs and diabetes—an application of the Austin Bradford Hill criteria. Diabetologia 49: 1467–1476.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Hoover, Kevin D. 2001. Causality in macroeconomics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  40. Humphreys, Paul. 1989. The chances of explanation: Causal explanation in the social, medical, and physical sciences. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  41. Jager, K.J., V.S. Stel, C. Wanner, C. Zoccali, and F.W. Dekker. 2007. The valuable contribution of observational studies to nephrology. Kidney International 72: 671–675.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. James, Robert C. 1994. Role of toxicology in toxic tort litigation: Establishing causation. Defense Counsel Journal 61: 28–39.Google Scholar
  43. Karhausen, L.R. 2000. Causation: The elusive grail of epidemiology. Medicine, Health Care and Philosophy 3: 59–67.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Kaufman, J.S., and C. Poole. 2000. Looking back on ‘causal thinking in the health sciences’. Annual Review of Public Health 21: 101–119.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Kever, Ashley T. 2002. The plaintiff’s challenges to proving causation in today’s toxic tort landscape. State Bar of Texas Environmental Law Journal 33: 19–43.Google Scholar
  46. Kundi, Michael. 2006. Causality and the interpretation of epidemiologic evidence. Environmental Health Perspectives 114 (7): 969–974.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Labarthe, Darwin R., and Reuel A. Stallones. 1988. Epidemiologic inference. In Causal inference, ed. Kenneth J. Rothman, 119–129. Chestnut Hill, MA: Epidemiology Resources, Inc.Google Scholar
  48. Lemen, Richard A. 2004. Chrysotile asbestos as a cause of mesothelioma: Application of the Hill Causation Model. International Journal of Occupational and Environmental Health 10 (2): 233–239.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  49. Lewis, David. 1986. Philosophical papers, volume II. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  50. Loeb, Louis E. 1974. Causal theories and causal overdetermination. The Journal of Philosophy 71 (15): 525–544.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Lucas, Robyn M., and Anthony J. McMichael. 2005. Association or causation: Evaluating links between ‘environment and disease’. Bulletin of the World Health Organization 83 (10): 792–795.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  52. Mackie, J.L. 1974. The cement of the universe: A study of causation. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
  53. McDermott, Michael. 1995. Redundant causation. The British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 46 (4): 523–544.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Mengersen, K., S.A. Moynihan, and R.L. Tweedie. 2007. Causality and association: The statistical and legal approaches. Statistical Science 22 (2): 227–254.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Morabia, Alfredo. 2004. Epidemiology: An epistemological perspective. In A history of epidemiologic methods and concepts, ed. Alfredo Morabia, 3–124. Berlin: Birkhäuser Verlag.Google Scholar
  56. Morrison, Keith. 2008. Editorial. Evaluation and Research in Education 21 (1): 1–3.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Muscat, Joshua E., and Micahel S. Huncharek. 1989. Causation and disease: Biomedical science in toxic tort litigation. Journal of Occupational Medicine 31 (12): 997–1002.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Naschitz, Jochanan E., Julia Kovaleva, Naomi Shaviv, Gad Rennert, and Daniel Yeshurun. 2003. Vascular disorders preceding diagnosis of cancer: Distinguishing the causal relationship based on Bradford-Hill guidelines. Angiology 54 (1): 11–17.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  59. Parascandola, M., and D.L. Weed. 2001. Causation in epidemiology. Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health 55: 905–912.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Pearl, Judea. 2001. Causal inference in the health sciences: A conceptual introduction. Health Services and Outcomes Research Methodology 2: 189–220.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Perrio, Michael, Simon Voss, and Saad A.W. Shakir. 2007. Application of the Bradford Hill criteria to assess the causality of cisapride-induced arrhythmia: A model for assessing causal association in pharmacovigilance. Drug Safety 30 (4): 333–346.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Phillips, Carl V., and Karen J. Goodman. 2004. The missed lessons of Sir Austin Bradford Hill. Epidemiologic Perspectives and Innovations 1 (3). Online at
  63. Randall, John Herman Jr. 1940. The making of the modern mind—revised edition. Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin Company.Google Scholar
  64. Reiter, Jerome. 2000. Using statistics to determine causal relationships. The American Mathematical Monthly 107 (1): 24–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Rickles, Dean. 2008. Causality in complex interventions. Medicine, Health Care and Philosophy. doi:  10.1007/s11019-008-9140-4.
  66. Rizzi, Dominick A., and Stig Andur Pedersen. 1992. Causality in medicine: Towards a theory and terminology. Theoretical Medicine 13: 233–254.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Rosenbaum, Paul R. 1989. Safety in caution. Journal of Educational Statistics 14 (2): 169–173.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. Rothman, Kenneth J. 1976. Causes. American Journal of Epidemiology 104 (6): 587–592.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  69. Rothman, Kenneth J. 2002. Epidemiology: An introduction. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  70. Rothman, Kenneth J., and Sander Greenland. 2005. Causation and causal inference in epidemiology. American Journal of Public Health 95 (S1): S144–S150.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. Rothman, Kenneth J., Sander Greenland, Charles Poole, and Timothy L. Lash. 2008. Causation and causal inference. In Modern epidemiology, 3rd edition, ed. Kenneth J. Rothman, Sander Greenland, and Timothy L. Lash, 5–31. Philadelphia, PA: Lippincott, Williams and Wilkins.Google Scholar
  72. Russell, Bertrand. 1949. On the notion of cause, in mysticism and logic and other essays, 180–208. London: George Allen and Unwin, Ltd.Google Scholar
  73. Russo, Frederica, and Jon Williamson. 2007. Interpreting causality in the health sciences. International Studies in the Philosophy of Science 21 (2): 157–170.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  74. Salmon, Wesley C. 1998. Causality and explanation. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  75. Schlesselman, James J., Bruce V. Stadel, Pamela Murray, Phyllis A. Wingo, and George L. Rubin. 1987. Consistency and plausibility in epidemiologic analysis: Application to breast cancer in relation to use of oral contraceptives. Journal of Chronic Diseases 40 (11): 1033–1039.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  76. Shadish, William R., Thomas D. Cook, and Donald T. Campbell. 2002. Experimental and quasi-experimental designs for generalized causal inference. Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin Company.Google Scholar
  77. Shaffer, Terry L., and Douglas H. Johnson. 2008. Ways of learning: Observational studies versus experiments. Journal of Wildlife Management 72 (1): 4–13.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  78. Shakir, S.A.W. 2004. Causality and correlation in pharmacovigilance. In Stephens’ detection of new adverse drug reactions, 5th ed, ed. John Talbot, and Patrick Walker, 329–343. West Sussex: John Wiley and Sons Ltd.Google Scholar
  79. Shakir, S.A.W., and Deborah Layton. 2002. Causal association in pharmacovigilance and pharmacoepidemiology: Thoughts on the application of the Austin Bradford-Hill criteria. Drug Safety 25 (6): 467–471.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  80. Smith, Herbert L. 1990. Specification problems in experimental and nonexperimental social research. Sociological Methodology 20: 59–91.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  81. Sober, Elliott. 1984. The nature of selection: Evolutionary theory in philosophical focus. Cambridge, MA: Bradford Books/MIT Press.Google Scholar
  82. Suppes, Patrick. 1982. Arguments for randomizing. PSA: Proceedings of the Biennial Meeting of the Philosophy of Science Association 2: 464–475.Google Scholar
  83. Suppes, Patrick. 1985. Probabilistic metaphysics. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.Google Scholar
  84. Swaen, Gerard, and van Ludovic Amelsvoort. 2008. A weight of evidence approach to causal inference. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology. doi:  10.1016/j.jclinepi.2008.06.013.
  85. Thompson, Melissa Moore. 1992–1993. Causal inference in epidemiology: Implications for toxic tort litigation. North Carolina Law Review 71: 247–291.Google Scholar
  86. United States Department of Health, Education and Welfare. 1964. Smoking and health: Report of the Advisory Committee to the Surgeon General of the Public Health Service. Washington, DC: United States Public Health Service.Google Scholar
  87. United States Department of Health and Human Services. 1982. The health consequences of smoking—cancer: A Report of the Surgeon General. Washington, DC: United States Public Health Service.Google Scholar
  88. Vandenbroucke, Jan P. 2004. When are observational studies as credible as randomised trials? Lancet 363: 1728–1731.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  89. Vineis, Paolo. 1991. Causality assessment in epidemiology. Theoretical Medicine 12: 171–181.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  90. Von Elm, Erik, Douglas G. Altman, Matthias Egger, Stuart J. Pocock, Peter C. Gøtzsche, and Jan P. Vandenbroucke. 2008. The strengthening the reporting of observational studies in epidemiology (STROBE) statement: Guidelines for reporting observational studies. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology 61: 344–349.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  91. Weed, Douglas L. 1988. Causal criteria and Popperian refutation. In Causal inference, ed. Kenneth J. Rothman, 15–32. Chestnut Hill, MA: Epidemiological Resources.Google Scholar
  92. Weed, Douglas L. 2004. Precaution, prevention, and public health ethics. Journal of Medicine and Philosophy 29 (3): 313–332.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  93. Weed, Douglas L. 2005. Methodologic implications of the precautionary principle: Causal criteria. Human and Ecological Risk Assessment 11: 107–113.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  94. Weiss, Noel S. 2002. Can the ‘specificity’ of an association be rehabilitated as a basis for supporting a causal hypothesis? Epidemiology 13 (1): 6–8.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  95. Woodward, James. 2003. Making things happen: A theory of causal explanation. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Minnesota Population CenterUniversity of MinnesotaMinneapolisUSA

Personalised recommendations