David Bourget (Western Ontario)
David Chalmers (ANU, NYU)
Rafael De Clercq
Ezio Di Nucci
Jonathan Jenkins Ichikawa
Jack Alan Reynolds
Learn more about PhilPapers
Social Epistemology 22 (4):333 – 352 (2008)
The Evidence-Based Medicine (EBM) movement is an ideological force in health research and health policy which asks for allegiance to two types of methodological doctrine. The first is the highly quotable motherhood statement: for example, that we should make conscientious, explicit and judicious use of current best evidence (paraphrasing Sackett). The second type of doctrine, vastly more specific and in practice more important, is the detailed methodology of design and analysis of experiments. This type of detailed methodological doctrine tends to be simplified by commentators but followed to the letter by practitioners. A number of interestingly dumb claims have become entrenched in prominent versions of these more specific methodological doctrines. I look at just a couple of example claims, namely: Any randomised controlled trial (RCT) gives us better evidence than any other study. Confidence intervals are always useful summaries of at least part of the evidence an experiment gives us about a hypothesis. To offer a positive doctrine which might move us past the current conflict of micro-theories of evidence, I propose a mild methodological pluralism: in any local context in which none of a variety of scientific methodologies is clearly and uncontentiously right, researchers should not be discouraged from using any methodology for which they can provide a good argument
|Keywords||No keywords specified (fix it)|
|Categories||categorize this paper)|
Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server
Configure custom proxy (use this if your affiliation does not provide a proxy)
|Through your library|
References found in this work BETA
J. Grossman & F. Mackenzie (2005). The Randomized Controlled Trial: Gold Standard or Merely Standard? Perspectives in Biology and Medicine 48 (4):516-34.
Citations of this work BETA
Gordon R. Mitchell & Kathleen M. McTigue (2012). Translation Through Argumentation in Medical Research and Physician-Citizenship. Journal of Medical Humanities 33 (2):83-107.
Miles Little (2013). A Better Grounding for Person-Centered Medicine? American Journal of Bioethics 13 (8):40-42.
Similar books and articles
Maya J. Goldenberg (2006). On Evidence and Evidence-Based Medicine: Lessons From the Philosophy of Science. Social Science and Medicine 62 (11):2621-2632.
Mona Gupta (2007). Does Evidence-Based Medicine Apply to Psychiatry? Theoretical Medicine and Bioethics 28 (2):103.
A. la Caze (2009). Evidence-Based Medicine Must Be .. Journal of Medicine and Philosophy 34 (5):509-527.
Jeremy Howick (2011). The Philosophy of Evidence-Based Medicine. Wiley-Blackwell, Bmj Books.
Ron Morstyn (2010). How the Philosophy of Merleau- Ponty Can Help Us Understand the Gulf Between Clinical Experience and the Doctrine of Evidence-Based Psychotherapy. Australasian Psychiatry 18 ( 3):221–225.
Simon A. Cole, Toward Evidence-Based Evidence: Supporting Forensic Knowledge Claims in the Post-Daubert Era.
Maya J. Goldenberg (2009). Iconoclast or Creed? Objectivism, Pragmatism, and the Hierarchy of Evidence. Perspectives in Biology and Medicine 52 (2):168-187.
Brian Hazelton Walsh (2010). The Spatialisation of Disease: Foucualt and Evidence-Based Medicine (Ebm). [REVIEW] Journal of Bioethical Inquiry 7 (1):31-42.
Erica Zarkovich & R. E. G. Upshur (2002). The Virtues of Evidence. Theoretical Medicine and Bioethics 23 (4-5):403-412.
Added to index2009-02-01
Total downloads25 ( #162,739 of 1,934,374 )
Recent downloads (6 months)1 ( #434,207 of 1,934,374 )
How can I increase my downloads?