The methodological stance that the only trustworthy form of evidence comes from Randomized Controlled Trials (RCTs), and that all claims about causality, efficacy, or
truth should be determined via RCTs. It is a form of methodological reductionism
common in evidence-based medicine, economics, and some social sciences. RTC reductionism holds that observational studies, qualitative research, expert
opinion, and historical analysis are inherently inferior or
worthless. Critics argue that many important questions (e.g., the effects of smoking, the impact of macroeconomics) cannot be ethically or practically studied by RCTs. Over-reliance on RCTs can lead to narrow, context-blind policy and neglect of mechanisms, side effects, and long-term outcomes.
Example: “The RTC reductionist dismissed the qualitative study of
poverty as ‘unscientific’ because it had no control group. The sociologist responded, ‘You cannot randomize people into
poverty to study its effects—RTC reductionism is a luxury of
well-funded, controllable domains.’”
