or smoking and cancer risk as an example to think about the hierarchy of evidence and why is it important to consider that.

Yeah.

I mean, the rationale for RCTs is really straightforward.

And I think most undergraduates and Ari Fisher certainly, you know, can appreciate it, right? If we control for various confounders, we are more likely to arrive at replicable results, right? And the randomized controlled experiment is intended to control for all the potential confounders, right? The problem is that There are certain things that are really difficult to study with a randomized controlled experiment.

And Doll and Hill and Widener, Graham and the 1950s, right, showed that you could actually study the link between smoking and lung cancer without a randomized controlled experiment.

You could do case control or cohort studies or, you know, lesser studies.

epidemiological studies to track a link over time.

What would be helpful that could be carried away from some of the work that is being done in the philosophy of science work?