Abstract

I argue that difference-making should be a crucial element for evaluating the quality of evidence for mechanisms, especially with respect to the robustness of mechanisms, and that it should take central stage when it comes to the general role played by mechanisms in establishing causal claims in medicine. The difference-making of mechanisms should provide additional compelling reasons to accept the gist of Russo-Williamson thesis and include mechanisms in the protocols for Evidence-Based Medicine (EBM), as the EBM+ research group has been advocating.

Highlights

  • It is commonplace that in epistemology and the philosophy of science, the nature of evidence in medicine has become in recent years one of the most researched topics

  • I argue that difference-making should be a crucial element for evaluating the quality of evidence for mechanisms, especially with respect to the robustness of mechanisms, and that it should take central stage when it comes to the general role played by mechanisms in establishing causal claims in medicine

  • The differencemaking of mechanisms should provide additional compelling reasons to accept the gist of Russo-Williamson thesis and include mechanisms in the protocols for EvidenceBased Medicine (EBM), as the EBM+ research group has been advocating

Read more

Summary

Introduction

It is commonplace that in epistemology and the philosophy of science, the nature of evidence in medicine has become in recent years one of the most researched topics. As one of the leading thinkers of the EBM movement, Howick has provided us with trenchant and illuminating expositions as to the purpose and functioning of evidence-based medicine, and the details and perspective of the Russo-Williamson thesis could be criticized, as I did myself from a certain perspective.. As one of the leading thinkers of the EBM movement, Howick has provided us with trenchant and illuminating expositions as to the purpose and functioning of evidence-based medicine, and the details and perspective of the Russo-Williamson thesis could be criticized, as I did myself from a certain perspective. At the same time, I agree with the basic insight of the thesis, which is that mechanisms are crucial for medicine, and I will try to explain why Howick could not come to terms with it, as well as why he, as well as the other EBM theorists, should accept the gist of it

The Protocol for the Quality of Evidence of Mechanisms
Exposing the Vanities Indeed
Conclusion

Talk to us

Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have

Schedule a call

Disclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.