Tieteen objektiivisuuden ehdoista

Jyväskylässä 5.9.2015 pidetty Lectio Praecursoria

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

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

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

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

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

E-synthesis for carcinogenicity assessments: A case study of processed meat

Rationale, Aims and Objectives Recent controversies about dietary advice concerning meat demonstrate that aggregating the available evidence to assess a putative causal link between food and cancer is a challenging enterprise. Methods We show how a tool developed for assessing putative causal links between drugs and adverse drug reactions, E-Synthesis, can be applied for food carcinogenicity assessments. The application is demonstrated on the putative causal relationship between processed meat consumption and cancer. Results The output of the assessment is a Bayesian probability that processed meat consumption causes cancer. This Bayesian probability is calculated from a Bayesian network model, which incorporates a representation of Bradford Hill's Guidelines as probabilistic indicators of causality. We show how to determine probabilities of indicators of causality for food carcinogenicity assessments based on assessments of the International Agency for Research on Cancer. Conclusions We find that E-Synthesis is a tool well-suited for food carcinogenicity assessments, as it enables a graphical representation of lines and weights of evidence, offers the possibility to make a great number of judgements explicit and transparent, outputs a probability of causality suitable for decision making and is flexible to aggregate different kinds of evidence

Questioning Evidence: Three Modes of Contestation

This chapter presents a heuristic on how to distinguish between three modes of contestation of scientific evidence, knowledge and expertise in knowledge societies. The first mode of contestation questions the validity and reliability of scientific knowledge; the second one raises doubts that the specific scientific expertise is adequate for solving the political problem at hand; and the third one criticizes the scientific field's exposed position in matters of decision- and policy-making and administrative processes. The three forms of contestation have different effects on the recognition of science. In the first mode, scientific evidence is problematized. In the second mode, its political framing and usage is questioned, without denying the role of scientific evidence in political and administrative decision-making in principle. In the third mode, the relevance of scientific evidence for political decision-making is questioned

Tieteen objektiivisuuden ehdoista

nonPeerReviewe