The Meaning of the Opposition Between the Healthy and the Pathological and its consequences

International audienceIf the healthy and the pathological are not merely judgments qualifiers, but real phenomena, it must be possible to define both of them positively, which, in this context, means as factual contraries. On the other hand, only a privative definition, either of the pathological as 'non-healthy', or of the healthy as 'non-pathological', can rationally circumscribe all possible states of an organism. This fluctuation between two meanings of the 'healthy'-'pathological' opposition, factual vs. rational, characterizes the ordinary usage of these concepts and puts all philosophical definitions in a hopeless situation. Although a scientific definition may conceal this equivocation by adequately setting out the terms of the problem of discriminating between the 'healthy' and the 'pathological', it could explain some of the difficulties met in determining 'gold standards', in the choice of separators, and in the assessment of the diagnostic qualities of tests

How does a psychiatrist infer from an observed condition to a case of mental disorder?

International audienceThe main thesis of this paper is that mental health practitioners can legitimately infer that a patient's given condition is a case of mental disorder without having diagnosed any specific mental disorder. The article shows how this is justifiable by relying either on psychopathological reasoning, on 'intentional' analysis or possibly on other modes of reasoning. In the end, it highlights the clinical and philosophical consequences of the plurality of modes of 'inferences to mental disorder'

Neither from words, nor from visions: understanding p-medicine from innovative treatments

Despite its vagueness Personalized, Precision, P4, P5, individualized, stratified medicine—or p-medicine in short—has become an increasingly popular term in biomedical literature. Philosophers have attempted to analyze what these various terms involve and have discussed consequences for medical practices. In this article, I argue that an important question remains unaddressed: what has made this project of p-medicine convincing to so many? My argument is that without real achievements, it would never have been. I also make the case that these achievements stem from the domain of monoclonal antibodies (mab), a new type of drug that justifies talks of personalized, precise, stratified, etc., medicine. In conclusion, while it may be possible to label any projection in the future of medicine as ‘p-medicine’, it is impossible to overlook mab-medicine as the spearhead

A dual decomposition strategy of both microbial and phenotypic components for a better understanding of causal claims

In our commentary on Lynch et al.'s target paper (2019, this issue), we focus on decomposition as a research strategy. We argue that not only the presumptive microbial causes but also their supposed phenotypic effects need to be decomposed relative to each other. Such a dual decomposition strategy ought to improve the way in which causal claims in microbiome research can be made and understood

Trois conceptions sémantiques des théories en médecine

La conception traditionnelle des théories scientifiques en philosophie de langue anglaise, qu’on appelle la « received view », et qui culmine au début des années 1960, posait de nombreux obstacles à une conception des théories scientifiques en biologie et en médecine. La conception sémantique des théories scientifiques qui lui succéda permit de lever ces obstacles, mais pas de différencier les théories en biologie expérimentale et en médecine. Le présent article met en évidence comment, en s’appuyant sur cette conception, Schaffner établit la spécificité des théories biologiques et médicales par rapport aux théories physiques, comment Thompson établit que c’est le savoir biologique et non le savoir clinique qui, véritablement théorique, fonde le caractère proprement scientifique de la médecine, et enfin, comment Sadegh-Zadeh peut proposer à son tour des caractéristiques des théories médicales qui leur sont potentiellement spécifiques et les distinguent des théories biologiques.La conception traditionnelle des théories scientifiques en philosophie de langue anglaise, qu’on appelle la « received view », et qui culmine au début des années 1960, posait de nombreux obstacles à une conception des théories scientifiques en biologie et en médecine. La conception sémantique des théories scientifiques qui lui succéda permit de lever ces obstacles, mais pas de différencier les théories en biologie expérimentale et en médecine. Le présent article met en évidence comment, en s’appuyant sur cette conception, Schaffner établit la spécificité des théories biologiques et médicales par rapport aux théories physiques, comment Thompson établit que c’est le savoir biologique et non le savoir clinique qui, véritablement théorique, fonde le caractère proprement scientifique de la médecine, et enfin, comment Sadegh-Zadeh peut proposer à son tour des caractéristiques des théories médicales qui leur sont potentiellement spécifiques et les distinguent des théories biologiques

Anya Plutynski’s Explaining Cancer: Finding Order in Disorder

Book review of Anya Plutynski’s Explaining Cancer: Finding Order in Disorde

A dual decomposition strategy of both microbial and phenotypic components for a better understanding of causal claims

In our commentary on Lynch et al.'s target paper (2019, this issue), we focus on decomposition as a research strategy. We argue that not only the presumptive microbial causes but also their supposed phenotypic effects need to be decomposed relative to each other. Such a dual decomposition strategy ought to improve the way in which causal claims in microbiome research can be made and understood

Introduction

Introduction to the 2018 SPS conferenc

Philosophy in Science: Can philosophers of science permeate through science and produce scientific knowledge?

Most philosophers of science do philosophy ‘on’ science. By contrast, others do philosophy ‘in’ science (‘PinS’), i.e., they use philosophical tools to address scientific problems and to provide scientifically useful proposals. Here, we consider the evidence in favour of a trend of this nature. We proceed in two stages. First, we identify relevant authors and articles empirically with bibliometric tools, given that PinS would be likely to infiltrate science and thus to be published in scientific journals (‘intervention’), cited in scientific journals (‘visibility’) and sometimes recognized as a scientific result by scientists (‘contribution’). We show that many central figures in philosophy of science have been involved in PinS, and that some philosophers have even ‘specialized’ in this practice. Second, we propose a conceptual definition of PinS as a process involving three conditions (raising a scientific problem, using philosophical tools to address it, and making a scientific proposal), and we ask whether the articles identified at the first stage fulfil all these conditions. We show that PinS is a distinctive, quantitatively substantial trend within philosophy of science, demonstrating the existence of a methodological continuity from science to philosophy of science

The visibility of philosophy of science in the sciences, 1980–2018

In this paper, we provide a macro level analysis of the visibility of philosophy of science in the sciences over the last four decades. Our quantitative analysis of publications and citations of philosophy of science papers, published in 17 main journals representing the discipline, contributes to the longstanding debate on the influence of philosophy of science on the sciences. It reveals the global structure of relationships that philosophy of science maintains with science, technology, engineering and mathematics (STEM) and social sciences and humanities (SSH) fields. Explored at the level of disciplines, journals and authors, this analysis of the relations between philosophy of science and a large and diversified array of disciplines allows us to answer several questions: what is the degree of openness of various disciplines to the specialized knowledge produced in philosophy of science? Which STEM and SSH fields and journals have privileged ties with philosophy of science? What are the characteristics, in terms of citation and publication patterns, of authors who get their philosophy of science papers cited outside their field? Complementing existing qualitative inquiries on the influence of specific authors, concepts or topics of philosophy of science, the bibliometric approach proposed in this paper offers a comprehensive portrait of the multiple relationships that links philosophy of science to the sciences