Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part C-Studies in History and Philosophy of Biological and Biomedical Sciences最新文献

Synthesising arguments motivate changes to the conceptual tools, theoretical structure, and evaluatory framework employed in a given scientific domain. Recently, a broad coalition of researchers has put forward a synthesising argument in favour of an Extended Evolutionary Synthesis (‘EES’). Often this synthesising argument is evaluated using a virtue-based approach, which construes the EES as a wholesale alternative to prevailing practice. Here I argue this virtue-based approach is not fit for purpose. Taking the central concept of niche construction as a case study, I show that an agenda-based approach better captures the pragmatic and epistemological goals of the EES synthesising argument and diagnoses areas of empirical disagreement with prevailing practice.

In a new and interesting book entitled Medical Nihilism (2018), Jacob Stegenga attempts to convince us that modern medical therapies are less effective than we think. Given the heterogeneity of hypotheses in medicine and the evidence for or against them, I argue that such a decontextualised critique cannot be made unless substantially weakened. Instead, I put forward an alternative, more nuanced and defensible epistemic view of medicine. According to this view, evaluating medical evidence requires analysis of both the methods of research e.g. randomised controlled trial (RCT), and context-specific information. This is because the way a trial (even an RCT) is conducted e.g. the population recruited and how it is intervened on, will vary and will have significant effects on the likelihood of a positive outcome. Moreover, the relationship between the positive outcome of a trial and the actual effectiveness of an intervention (the trial validity) will depend on these context specific factors. I argue for this position against nihilism by showing how each of Stegenga's individual claims about medical trials (trials are biased in favour of positive outcomes etc) can be questioned by taking the context into consideration.

Some interpreters claim Kant distinguishes between organisms and living things. I argue this claim is underdetermined by the textual evidence. Once this is recognized, it becomes a real possibility that Kant's various remarks about the essential properties of living things generalize to organisms as such. This, in turn, generates a puzzle. Kant repeatedly claims that the capacity for representation is essential to the nature of a living thing. If he does not distinguish between living things and organisms, then how might the capacity for representation be essential to the latter? Drawing on the writings of Kant and his contemporaries, I reconstruct a framework within which representational capacities might conceivably be thought to play this role. On this view, what distinguishes an organism from mechanically explicable products of nature is its capacity for endogenous behavior that is instinctual and representationally mediated.

Cancer screening is the subject of much debate; while screening has the potential to save lives by identifying and treating cancers in early stages, it is also the case that not all cancers cause symptoms, and the diagnosis of these cancers can lead to unnecessary treatments and subsequent side-effects and complications. This paper explores the relationships between epistemic risks in cancer diagnosis and screening, the social organization of medical research and practice, and policy making; it does this by examining 2018 recommendations by the United States Preventative Services Task Force that patients make individualized, autonomy-based decisions about cancer screening on the basis of discussions with their physicians. While the paper focuses on prostate cancer screening, the issues that it raises are relevant to other cancer screening programs, especially breast cancer. The paper argues that prostate cancer screening—and, more generally, the process of risk assessment for prostate cancer—is pervaded by epistemic risks that reflect value judgments and that the pervasiveness of these epistemic risks creates significant and under-explored difficulties for physician-patient communication and the achievement of autonomous patient decision making.

Behaviour is a widespread object of research in biology, yet it is often left undefined, and the variety of existing definitions have not led to a consensus. We argue that the fundamental problem in defining behaviour has been the assumption that the concept must be categorical: either a phenomenon is a behaviour or it is not. We propose instead that ‘behaviour’ is best understood as a spectrum concept. We have identified three major characteristics of phenomena which, we argue, fuel the intuitions of biologists regarding the classification of cases as behaviour. All are related to the mechanistic explanations put forth to account for the phenomena, and are (i) the complexity of the mechanism, (ii) the stability of the constitutive entities, and (iii) the quantity and significance of the inputs to the underlying mechanism. We illustrate this new conceptualisation through a three-dimensional behaviour-space which highlights the apparently different conceptualizations of behaviour attributed to humans, animals and plants, showing that they, in fact, all partake of a unified, malleable understanding of a single concept.