Philosophers on drugs

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

6 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

There are some philosophical questions that can be answered without attention to the social context in which evidence is produced and distributed. Abstracting away from social context is an excellent way to ignore messy details and lay bare the underlying structure of the limits of inference. Idealization is entirely appropriate when one is essentially asking: In the best of all possible worlds, what am I entitled to infer? Yet, philosophers’ concerns often go beyond this domain. As an example I examine the debate on mechanistic evidence and then reevaluate a canonical case study in this debate. I show that for the assessment of actual evidence, produced in a world that is far from ideal, omission of the social aspects of medical epistemology (e.g. commercial drivers of medical research) leads philosophers to draw the wrong lessons from cases they take as paradigmatic cases for their views. I close by arguing that social epistemology provides an avenue to incorporate these complications and provides the necessary framework to understand medical evidence.

Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)4363-4390
Number of pages28
JournalSynthese
Volume196
Issue number11
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - 2019 Nov 1

Fingerprint

drug
epistemology
evidence
medical research
driver
Drugs
Philosopher
Social Context
Idealization
Ideal
Inference
Social Aspects
Epistemology
Possible Worlds
Omission
Medical Research
Paradigmatics
Complications
Social Epistemology

All Science Journal Classification (ASJC) codes

  • Philosophy
  • Social Sciences(all)

Cite this

Holman, Bennett. / Philosophers on drugs. In: Synthese. 2019 ; Vol. 196, No. 11. pp. 4363-4390.
@article{791484730c2a45ae8faed30f1d305abf,
title = "Philosophers on drugs",
abstract = "There are some philosophical questions that can be answered without attention to the social context in which evidence is produced and distributed. Abstracting away from social context is an excellent way to ignore messy details and lay bare the underlying structure of the limits of inference. Idealization is entirely appropriate when one is essentially asking: In the best of all possible worlds, what am I entitled to infer? Yet, philosophers’ concerns often go beyond this domain. As an example I examine the debate on mechanistic evidence and then reevaluate a canonical case study in this debate. I show that for the assessment of actual evidence, produced in a world that is far from ideal, omission of the social aspects of medical epistemology (e.g. commercial drivers of medical research) leads philosophers to draw the wrong lessons from cases they take as paradigmatic cases for their views. I close by arguing that social epistemology provides an avenue to incorporate these complications and provides the necessary framework to understand medical evidence.",
author = "Bennett Holman",
year = "2019",
month = "11",
day = "1",
doi = "10.1007/s11229-017-1642-2",
language = "English",
volume = "196",
pages = "4363--4390",
journal = "Synthese",
issn = "0039-7857",
publisher = "Springer Netherlands",
number = "11",

}

Philosophers on drugs. / Holman, Bennett.

In: Synthese, Vol. 196, No. 11, 01.11.2019, p. 4363-4390.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

TY - JOUR

T1 - Philosophers on drugs

AU - Holman, Bennett

PY - 2019/11/1

Y1 - 2019/11/1

N2 - There are some philosophical questions that can be answered without attention to the social context in which evidence is produced and distributed. Abstracting away from social context is an excellent way to ignore messy details and lay bare the underlying structure of the limits of inference. Idealization is entirely appropriate when one is essentially asking: In the best of all possible worlds, what am I entitled to infer? Yet, philosophers’ concerns often go beyond this domain. As an example I examine the debate on mechanistic evidence and then reevaluate a canonical case study in this debate. I show that for the assessment of actual evidence, produced in a world that is far from ideal, omission of the social aspects of medical epistemology (e.g. commercial drivers of medical research) leads philosophers to draw the wrong lessons from cases they take as paradigmatic cases for their views. I close by arguing that social epistemology provides an avenue to incorporate these complications and provides the necessary framework to understand medical evidence.

AB - There are some philosophical questions that can be answered without attention to the social context in which evidence is produced and distributed. Abstracting away from social context is an excellent way to ignore messy details and lay bare the underlying structure of the limits of inference. Idealization is entirely appropriate when one is essentially asking: In the best of all possible worlds, what am I entitled to infer? Yet, philosophers’ concerns often go beyond this domain. As an example I examine the debate on mechanistic evidence and then reevaluate a canonical case study in this debate. I show that for the assessment of actual evidence, produced in a world that is far from ideal, omission of the social aspects of medical epistemology (e.g. commercial drivers of medical research) leads philosophers to draw the wrong lessons from cases they take as paradigmatic cases for their views. I close by arguing that social epistemology provides an avenue to incorporate these complications and provides the necessary framework to understand medical evidence.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85035810442&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=85035810442&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1007/s11229-017-1642-2

DO - 10.1007/s11229-017-1642-2

M3 - Article

AN - SCOPUS:85035810442

VL - 196

SP - 4363

EP - 4390

JO - Synthese

JF - Synthese

SN - 0039-7857

IS - 11

ER -