Skip to main content

ETHNOS_APP

Home • Search • Journals • List 0

Demarcating scientific medicine

Bibliographic Data

ID10798043
AuthorsJonathan Fuller (0000-0002-7598-9808)
Year2024
Volume106
Pages177-185
Publication date2024-08-01
Open AccessYes
TypeARTICLE
VenueStudies in History and Philosophy of Science (JOURNAL)
Journal identifiersISSN: 0039-3681 • E-ISSN: 1879-2510
PublisherElsevier BV (PUBLISHER)
DOI10.1016/j.shpsa.2024.06.002
PMID38996617
OpenAlexW4400603505
LanguageEN
References cited28

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

Alternative medicine · Epistemology · Homeopathy · Medical education · Medical science · Pathology · Pseudoscience · Quackery · Scientific evidence · Climate Change and Health Impacts · Complementary and Alternative Medicine Studies · Medicine · Meta-analysis and systematic reviews · Philosophy · Psychology

  • Mechanisms and the Evidence Hierarchy

    Open Access•Brendan Clarke, Donald Gillies et al.•Topoi•2014

  • GRADE guidelines

    Open Access•Howard Balshem, Mark Helfand et al.•Journal of Clinical Epidemiology•2011

  • Evidence-Based Medicine

    Gordon Guyatt, Gordon Guaytt•JAMA•1992

  • Interpreting Causality in the Health Sciences

    F Russo, Jon Williamson•International Studies in the…•2007

  • Against the Spirit of the System

    Stephen Kenny, Stephen C Kenny et al.•Journal of the Early Republic•1999

  • Quantification and the Quest for Medical Certainty

    Lisa R Staffen, J R Matthews et al.•Contemporary Sociology A Journal…•1996

  • Systematicity is necessary but not sufficient

    Open Access•Naomi Oreskes•Synthese•2019

  • Why homoeopathy is pseudoscience

    Open Access•Nikil Mukerji, Edzard Ernst•Synthese•2022

  • Medicine as science. Systematicity and demarcation

    Open Access•Somogy Vargas•Synthese•2021

  • Systematicity, knowledge, and bias. How systematicity made clinical medicine a science

    Open Access•Anthony Bird•Synthese•2019

  • Evidence of effectiveness

    Open Access•Jacob Stegenga•Studies in History and Philosophy…•2022

  • Unwarranted assumptions

    Open Access•Raphael Scholl•Studies in History and Philosophy…•2020

  • Clinical recommendations

    Open Access•Lucie Perillat, Mathew Mercuri•Studies in History and Philosophy…•2022

  • Causal inference, mechanisms, and the Semmelweis case

    Open Access•Raphael Scholl•Studies in History and Philosophy…•2013

  • What Evidence in Evidence-Based Medicine

    Open Access•John Worrall, John L Worrall•Philosophy of Science•2002

  • The Disappearance of the Sick-Man from Medical Cosmology, 1770-1870

    Open Access•Nick Jewson, N D Jewson•Sociology•1976

Highly citedNo

Tools

Open DOIOpen Access
Ethnos_APP • Open Source Project • MIT License • Frontend v2.0.0 • Privacy and Cookies • API Documentation: api.ethnos.app/docs • API Source Code: GitHub • DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.17049435 • Frontend Source Code: GitHub • DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.17050053 • cruz.rio.br • Expectantes Misericordiae