Which of the following is NOT one of Hill's Criteria of Causation?

Hill's Criteria of Causation is a set of principles that help to determine whether an observed association between two factors could reflect a causal relationship. Among these criteria are biological plausibility, experimental evidence, and specificity.

Biological plausibility refers to whether the association makes sense based on existing biological knowledge. It helps to establish a credible link between the cause and effect based on our understanding of biological processes.

Experimental evidence involves the use of controlled experiments to establish a cause-and-effect relationship. If manipulation of one factor leads to a change in another, it strengthens the inference of causation.

Specificity focuses on whether a specific cause leads to a specific effect, which helps clarify the nature of the association.

In contrast, contradictory evidence does not fit within Hill's Criteria because the criteria aim to support the notion of a causal link rather than undermine it. When exploring causation, conflicting evidence typically raises questions rather than providing assertions of causality. Thus, it is not a recognized component of Hill's framework.