Phronetic Risk in Research Agenda Setting - the Case of Nutrition Science and Public Health

Justin Biddle and Quill Kukla have introduced the concept of phronetic risk to refer to epistemic risks emerging in activities that either are conditions for empirical reasoning or included in empirical reasoning and that have to be weighted according to different values and interests. In this paper, I show how a phronetic risk arises in research agenda setting. Given the prevalence of noncommunicable diseases associated with diet, there is a need for science-based nutritional public health interventions. However, how the relation between nutrition and health should be studied is a contested matter. I argue that the choice between different approaches of studying nutrition-related disease causation involves considerable phronetic risks that cannot be managed by researchers alone. Funding agencies, non-governmental organisations and science policy decision makers should be considered epistemically relevant actors.</p

New Directions in Philosophy of Medicine

The purpose of this chapter is to describe what we see as several important new directions for philosophy of medicine. This recent work (i) takes existing discussions in important and promising new directions, (ii) identifies areas that have not received sufficient and deserved attention to date, and/or (iii) brings together philosophy of medicine with other areas of philosophy (including bioethics, philosophy of psychiatry, and social epistemology). To this end, the next part focuses on what we call the “epistemological turn” in recent work in the philosophy of medicine; the third part addresses new developments in medical research that raise interesting questions for philosophy of medicine; the fourth part is a discussion of philosophical issues within the practice of diagnosis; the fifth part focuses on the recent developments in psychiatric classification and scientific and ethical issues therein, and the final part focuses on the objectivity of medical research

Tieteen objektiivisuuden ehdoista

Jyväskylässä 5.9.2015 pidetty Lectio Praecursoria

Multi-professional healthcare teams, medical dominance, and institutional epistemic injustice

Multi-professional teams have become increasingly common in healthcare. Collaboration within such teams aims to enable knowledge amalgamation across specializations and to thereby improve standards of care for patients with complex health issues. However, multi-professional teamwork comes with certain challenges, as it requires successful communication across disciplinary and professional frameworks. In addition, work in multi-professional teams is often characterized by medical dominance, i.e., the perspective of physicians is prioritized over those of nurses, social workers, or other professionals. We argue that medical dominance in multi-professional teams can lead to institutional epistemic injustice, which affects both providers and patients negatively. Firstly, it codifies and promotes a systematic and unfair credibility deflation of the perspectives of professionals other than physicians. Secondly, it indirectly promotes epistemic injustice towards patients via leading to institutional opacity; i.e., via creating an intransparent system of credibility norms that is difficult to navigate. To overcome these problems, multi-professional teamwork requires institutional settings that promote epistemic equity of team members.</p

Bodies of evidence:The ‘Excited Delirium Syndrome’ and the epistemology of cause-of-death inquiry

“Excited Delirium Syndrome” (ExDS) is a controversial diagnosis. The supposed syndrome is sometimes considered to be a potential cause of death. However, it has been argued that its sole purpose is to cover up excessive police violence because it is mainly used to explain deaths of individuals in custody. In this paper, we examine the epistemic conditions giving rise to the controversial diagnosis by discussing the relation between causal hypotheses, evidence, and data in forensic medicine. We argue that the practitioners’ social context affects causal inquiry through background assumptions that enter inquiry at multiple stages. This analysis serves to better understand the wide usage of the controversial diagnosis of ExDS

Uvod u posebno izdanje o filozofiji medicine

This article is an introduction to the special issue on philosophy of medicine. Philosophy of medicine is a field that has flourished in the last couple of decades and has become increasingly institutionalized. The introduction begins with a brief overview of some of the most central recent developments in the field. It then describes the six articles that comprise this issue.Ovaj je članak uvod u posebno izdanje o filozofiji medicine. Filozofija medicine je područje koje je procvjetalo u posljednjih nekoliko desetljeća i postaje sve više institucionalizirano. Uvod počinje kratkim pregledom nekih od najvažnijih najnovijih zbivanja na tom području. Zatim opisuje šest članaka koji sačinjavaju ovo posebno izdanje

Objektiivisuuden monet merkitykset

Objektiivisuutta pidetään yhtenä tieteen keskeisistä hyveistä ja ideaaleista. Mutta mitä objektiivisuus oikeastaan on? Miten tieteen objektiivisuus voidaan turvata? Tai onko objektiivisuuden saavuttaminen edes mahdollista? Näihin kysymyksiin pyrkii vastaamaan Stephen Johnin vastasuomennettu teos Objektiivisuus tieteessä

Bodies of evidence: The ‘Excited Delirium Syndrome’ and the epistemology of cause-of-death inquiry

“Excited Delirium Syndrome” (ExDS) is a controversial diagnosis. The supposed syndrome is sometimes considered to be a potential cause of death. However, it has been argued that its sole purpose is to cover up excessive police violence because it is mainly used to explain deaths of individuals in custody. In this paper, we examine the epistemic conditions giving rise to the controversial diagnosis by discussing the relation between causal hypotheses, evidence, and data in forensic medicine. We argue that the practitioners’ social context affects causal inquiry through background assumptions that enter inquiry at multiple stages. This analysis serves to better understand the wide usage of the controversial diagnosis of ExDS