ABSTRACT EBP – evidence-based policy and practice – has generated intense controversy. A rough continuum of positions can be discerned: At one pole are “tough-minded” commentators distinguished by their support of EBP; however, there are serious internal differences in this camp, for some regard randomised field trials (RFTs) as the gold standard methodology that should generate the evidence required in EBP; while other “softer” commentators have a more nuanced position wherein the RFT is an INUS factor – part of a “causal cake” which requires many other support factors to be present before any generalisation can be made about a policy. The evolution of this softer branch of the tough-minded pole is traced, from Campbell and Stanley, to Cronbach and Associates, to Cartwright and Hardie. At the other pole are the tender-minded, many of whom are members of the philosophy of education community; they are sceptical about EBP, perhaps the most serious of their criticisms being that educational processes are not apt for causal investigation at all. The arguments that are offered in support of this position are judged to be deficient.

中文翻译：

---

关于原因证据的混淆证据：关于教育中的EBP辩论的评论

摘要EBP –基于证据的政策和实践–引起了激烈的争议。可以看出一个粗略的连续性立场：在一个极点上，“顽固”评论员以对EBP的支持而著称。但是，在这个阵营中存在严重的内部差异，从某种意义上说，随机田间试验（RFT）是金标准方法，应产生EBP所需的证据；而其他“软”评论员的立场则更加细微，RFT是INUS因素–“因果蛋糕”的一部分，在对政策进行任何概括之前，还需要其他许多支持因素。从坎贝尔和斯坦利，到克朗巴赫和合伙公司，再到卡特赖特和哈迪，都可以追溯到这根硬朗的杆子的较软分支的演变。在另一极是温柔的心，其中许多人是教育界哲学的成员；他们对EBP持怀疑态度，也许他们最严重的批评是教育过程根本不适合因果调查。支持这一立场的论点被认为是不足的。