Causation in evidence‐based medicine: in reply to <scp>S</scp>trand and <scp>P</scp>arkkinen

Kerry, Roger; Eriksen, Thor Eirik; Lie, Svein Anders Noer; Mumford, Stephen; Anjum, Rani Lill

doi:10.1111/jep.12189

Cited by 4 publications

(6 citation statements)

References 6 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Kerry et al . have proposed that evidence‐based practice should adopt a dispositionalist view of causality [45,46]. In reply, Parkkinen and Strand advocate for the ‘difference making’ view criticized by Kerry et al .…”

Section: Debatesmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…In the final contribution to this section, Veli-Pekka Parkkinen and Anders Strand continue an ongoing debate with Roger Kerry and colleagues about the nature of causation in EBM [44]. Kerry et al have proposed that evidence-based practice should adopt a dispositionalist view of causality [45,46]. In reply, Parkkinen and Strand advocate for the 'difference making' view criticized by Kerry et al [47,48], focusing in particular on the support that such a view gives for understanding the role that assumptions about causality play in inferences made in clinical reasoning.…”

Section: Debatesmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Diseases, patients and the epistemology of practice: mapping the borders of health, medicine and care

Loughlin¹,

Bluhm

Fuller

et al. 2015

Evaluation Clinical Practice

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Last year saw the 20th anniversary edition of JECP, and in the introduction to the philosophy section of that landmark edition, we posed the question: apart from ethics, what is the role of philosophy 'at the bedside'? The purpose of this question was not to downplay the significance of ethics to clinical practice. Rather, we raised it as part of a broader argument to the effect that ethical questions -about what we should do in any given situation -are embedded within whole understandings of the situation, inseparable from our beliefs about what is the case (metaphysics), what it is that we feel we can claim to know (epistemology), as well as the meaning we ascribe to different aspects of the situation or to our perception of it. Philosophy concerns fundamental questions: it is a discipline requiring us to examine the underlying assumptions we bring with us to our thinking about practical problems. Traditional academic philosophers divide their discipline into distinct areas that typically include logic: questions about meaning, truth and validity; ontology: questions about the nature of reality, what exists; epistemology: concerning knowledge; and ethics: how we should live and practice, the nature of value. Any credible attempt to analyse clinical reasoning will require us to think carefully about these types of question and the relationships between them, as they influence our thinking about specific situations and problems. So, the answers to the question we posed, about the role of philosophy at the bedside, are numerous and diverse, and that diversity is illustrated in the contributions to this thematic edition.

show abstract

Section: Debatesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Debatesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Diseases, patients and the epistemology of practice: mapping the borders of health, medicine and care

Loughlin¹,

Bluhm

Fuller

et al. 2015

Evaluation Clinical Practice

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…In other words, we assume that real effects survive exact replications of experiment. 1 If this assumption is false, replication failures could not count as evidence against a causal relation. If Kerry et al contest this assumption, they should provide an alternative analysis of the epistemic function of replication.…”

Section: Predictions Across Causal Contextsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Causation in evidence‐based medicine: in reply to Kerry et al.

Strand

Parkkinen

2015

Evaluation Clinical Practice

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Kerry et al. criticize our discussion of causal knowledge in evidence-based medicine (EBM) and our assessment of the relevance of their dispositionalist ontology for EBM. Three issues need to be addressed in response: (1) problems concerning transfer of causal knowledge across heterogeneous contexts; (2) how predictions about the effects of individual treatments based on population-level evidence from RCTs are fallible; and (3) the relevance of ontological theories like dispositionalism for EBM.

show abstract

“…In a reply to this paper, Kerry et al . [65] argue that their dispositionalist approach does ground clinical reasoning and, further, they claim that there is a good reason for philosophy of medicine to address ontological as well as epistemological questions about causation.…”

Section: Debatesmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…These Philosophy Thematic editions have substantially advanced the debate on all of the above issues, developing arguments about virtue epistemology, person‐centred care and more broadly extending the ways in which philosophical enquiry can make a substantive contribution to resolving issues of concern in clinical practice. While by no means a full representation of the range of ideas and arguments covered in the thematic editions to date, the articles selected for publication in this philosophy section of the commemorative twentieth anniversary edition of the journal represent some of the key movements in the central debates that have dominated our pages [52–69].…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%