The IARC and mechanistic evidence

Leuridan, B; Weber, Erik

doi:10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199574131.003.0005

Cited by 15 publications

(14 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Philosophers and scientists are attempting to use mechanisms to illuminate causal explanation, inference and modelling, as well as the metaphysics of causality (see Glennan 1996;Steel 2008;Leuridan and Weber 2011;Broadbent 2011;Gillies 2011). These debates are impeded by lack of a consensus account, in spite of a great deal of consensus now existing within the mechanisms literature.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

What is a mechanism? Thinking about mechanisms across the sciences

2011

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

mentioning

confidence: 99%

What is a mechanism? Thinking about mechanisms across the sciences

2011

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Wilde and Parkkinen briefly mention the case of the carcinogenicity of processed meat, where the classification was seemingly based on correlational evidence alone. One answer to this deviation in practice might be a call for correction (i.e., emphasizing the importance of mechanistic evidence, as in Leuridan and Weber 2011), while an alternative answer might be a reinterpretation of the the case: Clarke et al (2014, p. 343) point out that a study of sufficient quality may provide correlational information and at the same time rule out the possibility of confounding and bias.…”

Section: Wilde and Parkkinen On Extrapolation And The Russo-williamsomentioning

confidence: 99%

Evidence amalgamation in the sciences: an introduction

2018

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Amalgamating evidence from heterogeneous sources and across levels of inquiry is becoming increasingly important in many pure and applied sciences. This special issue provides a forum for researchers from diverse scientific and philosophical perspectives to discuss evidence amalgamation, its methodologies, its history, its pitfalls, and its potential. We situate the contributions therein within six themes from the broad literature on this subject: the variety-of-evidence thesis, the philosophy of meta-analysis, the role of robustness/sensitivity analysis for evidence amalgamation, its bearing on questions of extrapolation and external validity of experiments, its connection with theory development, and its interface with causal inference, especially regarding causal theories of cancer.

show abstract

“…This response is suggested by Leuridan and Weber (2011). They argue that in establishing carcinogenicity to humans, it is not enough to rely only on the studies of cancer in humans but that '[m]echanistic evidence should also be used to better exclude the possibility of confounding ' (2011, p. 99).…”

Section: The International Agency For Research On Cancermentioning

confidence: 99%

Extrapolation and the Russo–Williamson thesis

Wilde

Parkkinen

2017

Synthese

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

A particular tradition in medicine claims that a variety of evidence is helpful in determining whether an observed correlation is causal. In line with this tradition, it has been claimed that establishing a causal claim in medicine requires both probabilistic and mechanistic evidence. This claim has been put forward by Federica Russo and Jon Williamson. As a result, it is sometimes called the Russo-Williamson thesis. In support of this thesis, Russo and Williamson appeal to the practice of the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC). However, this practice presents some problematic cases for the Russo-Williamson thesis. One response to such cases is to argue in favour of reforming these practices. In this paper, we propose an alternative response according to which such cases are in fact consistent with the Russo-Williamson thesis. This response requires maintaining that there is a role for mechanism-based extrapolation in the practice of the IARC. However, the response works only if this mechanism-based extrapolation is reliable, and some have argued against the reliability of mechanism-based extrapolation. Against this, we provide some reasons for believing that reliable mechanism-based extrapolation is going on in the practice of the IARC. The reasons are provided by appealing to the role of robustness analysis.

show abstract

The IARC and mechanistic evidence

Cited by 15 publications

References 0 publications

What is a mechanism? Thinking about mechanisms across the sciences

What is a mechanism? Thinking about mechanisms across the sciences

Evidence amalgamation in the sciences: an introduction

Extrapolation and the Russo–Williamson thesis

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About