期刊
PHILOSOPHY OF SCIENCE
卷 78, 期 5, 页码 926-940出版社
UNIV CHICAGO PRESS
DOI: 10.1086/662561
关键词
-
资金
- MRC/ESRC [G0800055]
- Medical Research Council [G0800055] Funding Source: researchfish
- MRC [G0800055] Funding Source: UKRI
Philosophers of science have insisted that evidence of underlying mechanisms is required to support claims about the effects of medical interventions. Yet evidence about mechanisms does not feature on dominant evidence-based medicine hierarchies. After arguing that only inferences from mechanisms (mechanistic reasoning)-not mechanisms themselves-count as evidence, I argue for a middle ground. Mechanistic reasoning is not required to establish causation when we have high-quality controlled studies; moreover, mechanistic reasoning is more problematic than has been assumed. Yet where the problems can be overcome, mechanistic reasoning can and should be used as evidence.
作者
我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。
推荐
暂无数据