Chapter 15 Epistemic Gains and Epistemic Games
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 o...
Saved in:
| 主要作者: | |
|---|---|
| 格式: | Online |
| 語言: | 英语 |
| 出版: |
Springer Nature
2021
|
| 主題: | |
| 在線閱讀: | https://library.oapen.org/handle/20.500.12657/50312 |
| 標簽: |
沒有標簽, 成為第一個標記此記錄!
|
| 總結: | 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. |
|---|