Epistemic Gains and Epistemic Games: Reliability and Higher Order Evidence in Medicine and Pharmacology

8Citations
Citations of this article
25Readers
Mendeley users who have this article in their library.
Get full text

Abstract

In this paper I analyse the dissent around evidence standards in medicine and pharmacology as a result of distinct ways to address epistemic losses in our game with nature and the scientific ecosystem: an “elitist” and a “pluralist” approach. The former is focused on reliability as minimisation of random and systematic error, and is grounded on a categorical approach to causal assessment, whereas the latter is more focused on the high context-sensitivity of causation in medicine and in the soft sciences in general, and favours probabilistic approaches to scientific inference, as better equipped for defeasibility of causal inference in such domains. I then present a system for probabilistic causal assessment from heterogenous evidence that makes justice of concerns from both positions, while also incorporating “higher order evidence” (evidence/information about the evidence itself) in hypothesis confirmation.

Cite

CITATION STYLE

APA

Osimani, B. (2020). Epistemic Gains and Epistemic Games: Reliability and Higher Order Evidence in Medicine and Pharmacology. In Boston Studies in the Philosophy and History of Science (Vol. 338, pp. 345–372). Springer Nature. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-29179-2_15

Register to see more suggestions

Mendeley helps you to discover research relevant for your work.

Already have an account?

Save time finding and organizing research with Mendeley

Sign up for free