Low-dose extrapolation in toxicology: an old controversy revisited

Bolt, Hermann M.; Marchan, Rosemarie; Hengstler, Jan G.

doi:10.1007/s00204-009-0413-3

Cited by 4 publications

(1 citation statement)

References 19 publications

(19 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The synthesis is now breaking down ..." (Gould 1980: 121). Other extrapolation arguments relied on widely in biology include those inferring the danger of low doses of carcinogens from observations on high doses (Bolt et al 2009).…”

Section: Slippery Slope and Extrapolation Argumentsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Arguments Whose Strength Depends on Continuous Variation

Franklin

2013

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Both the traditional Aristotelian and modern symbolic approaches to logic have seen logic in terms of discrete symbol processing. Yet there are several kinds of argument whose validity depends on some topological notion of continuous variation, which is not well captured by discrete symbols. Examples include extrapolation and slippery slope arguments, sorites, fuzzy logic, and those involving closeness of possible worlds. It is argued that the natural first attempts to analyze these notions and explain their relation to reasoning fail, so that ignorance of their nature is profound.Résumé: Les approches dans les logiques Aristotélicienne traditionnelle et symbolique décrivent la logique en termes de traitement des symboles discrets. Pourtant, il existe plusieurs types d'arguments dont la validité dépend d'une certaine notion topologique de la variation continue, ce qui n'est pas bien saisie par les symboles discrets. On inclut comme exemples, des extrapolations, des arguments de la pente glissante, des sorites, des arguments fondés sur la logique floue, et ceux impliquant la proximité des mondes possibles. On fait valoir que les premières tentatives naturelles à analyser ces notions et à expliquer leur relation au raisonnement échouent, et que l'ignorance de cet échec est profonde.

show abstract

Section: Slippery Slope and Extrapolation Argumentsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Arguments Whose Strength Depends on Continuous Variation

Franklin

2013

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Low-dose extrapolation in toxicology: an old controversy revisited

et al. 2009

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Muller’s Nobel lecture on dose–response for ionizing radiation: ideology or science?

Calabrese

2011

Arch Toxicol

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In his Nobel Prize Lecture of December 12, 1946, Hermann J. Muller argued that the dose-response for radiation-induced germ cell mutations was linear and that there was "no escape from the conclusion that there is no threshold". However, assessment of correspondence between Muller and Curt Stern 1 month prior to his Nobel Prize Lecture reveals that Muller knew the results and implications of a recently completed study at the University of Rochester under the direction of Stern, which directly contradicted his Nobel Prize Lecture. This finding is of historical importance since Muller's Nobel Lecture gained considerable international attention and is a turning point in the acceptance of the linearity model in risk assessment for germ cell mutations and carcinogens.

show abstract

Low-dose extrapolation in toxicology: an old controversy revisited

Cited by 4 publications

References 19 publications

Arguments Whose Strength Depends on Continuous Variation

Arguments Whose Strength Depends on Continuous Variation

Low-dose extrapolation in toxicology: an old controversy revisited

Muller’s Nobel lecture on dose–response for ionizing radiation: ideology or science?

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About