划分科学医学。

IF 1.4 2区 哲学 Q1 HISTORY & PHILOSOPHY OF SCIENCE Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Pub Date : 2024-07-13 DOI:10.1016/j.shpsa.2024.06.002
Jonathan Fuller
{"title":"划分科学医学。","authors":"Jonathan Fuller","doi":"10.1016/j.shpsa.2024.06.002","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><p>Scientific medicine and homeopathy are interesting case studies for the ongoing project of demarcating science from pseudoscience. Much of the demarcation literature formulates abstract criteria for demarcating science from pseudoscience generally. In service of a more localist approach to the demarcation problem, I reconstruct a specific demarcating difference, the like comparison criterion, invoked by nineteenth century adherents to an early model of scientific medicine. If it is to remain relevant today, I argue that the like comparison criterion must be updated in our current era of epidemiological, evidence-based medicine to recognize the importance of assessing study bias and mechanistic implausibility in contemporary medical science.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":49467,"journal":{"name":"Studies in History and Philosophy of Science","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.4000,"publicationDate":"2024-07-13","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0039368124000992/pdfft?md5=2824ee6eddf324255d7b7b8d9035cc93&pid=1-s2.0-S0039368124000992-main.pdf","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Demarcating scientific medicine\",\"authors\":\"Jonathan Fuller\",\"doi\":\"10.1016/j.shpsa.2024.06.002\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div><p>Scientific medicine and homeopathy are interesting case studies for the ongoing project of demarcating science from pseudoscience. Much of the demarcation literature formulates abstract criteria for demarcating science from pseudoscience generally. In service of a more localist approach to the demarcation problem, I reconstruct a specific demarcating difference, the like comparison criterion, invoked by nineteenth century adherents to an early model of scientific medicine. If it is to remain relevant today, I argue that the like comparison criterion must be updated in our current era of epidemiological, evidence-based medicine to recognize the importance of assessing study bias and mechanistic implausibility in contemporary medical science.</p></div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":49467,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Studies in History and Philosophy of Science\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.4000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-07-13\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0039368124000992/pdfft?md5=2824ee6eddf324255d7b7b8d9035cc93&pid=1-s2.0-S0039368124000992-main.pdf\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Studies in History and Philosophy of Science\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"98\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0039368124000992\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"哲学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"HISTORY & PHILOSOPHY OF SCIENCE\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Studies in History and Philosophy of Science","FirstCategoryId":"98","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0039368124000992","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"HISTORY & PHILOSOPHY OF SCIENCE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

科学医学和顺势疗法是正在进行的划分科学与伪科学项目的有趣案例研究。许多划界文献都为科学与伪科学的划界制定了抽象的标准。为了以更本土化的方法解决划界问题,我重新构建了一个具体的划界差异,即十九世纪早期科学医学模式的追随者所援引的同类比较标准。我认为,同类比较标准要想在今天仍然适用,就必须在我们这个流行病学、循证医学的时代进行更新,以认识到评估研究偏差和机理不靠谱在当代医学科学中的重要性。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Demarcating scientific medicine

Scientific medicine and homeopathy are interesting case studies for the ongoing project of demarcating science from pseudoscience. Much of the demarcation literature formulates abstract criteria for demarcating science from pseudoscience generally. In service of a more localist approach to the demarcation problem, I reconstruct a specific demarcating difference, the like comparison criterion, invoked by nineteenth century adherents to an early model of scientific medicine. If it is to remain relevant today, I argue that the like comparison criterion must be updated in our current era of epidemiological, evidence-based medicine to recognize the importance of assessing study bias and mechanistic implausibility in contemporary medical science.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Studies in History and Philosophy of Science
Studies in History and Philosophy of Science 管理科学-科学史与科学哲学
CiteScore
2.50
自引率
10.00%
发文量
166
审稿时长
6.6 weeks
期刊介绍: Studies in History and Philosophy of Science is devoted to the integrated study of the history, philosophy and sociology of the sciences. The editors encourage contributions both in the long-established areas of the history of the sciences and the philosophy of the sciences and in the topical areas of historiography of the sciences, the sciences in relation to gender, culture and society and the sciences in relation to arts. The Journal is international in scope and content and publishes papers from a wide range of countries and cultural traditions.
期刊最新文献
Narratives of contingency and practices of comparing in the emergence of German molecular genetics (1958–1968) Positivist or post-positivist philosophy of science? The left Vienna Circle and Thomas Kuhn Theoretical concepts as goal-derived concepts Ancient Greek laws of nature Mary Hesse on the role of the human imagination in the philosophy and practice of science
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1