David Bourget (Western Ontario)
David Chalmers (ANU, NYU)
Rafael De Clercq
Jack Alan Reynolds
Learn more about PhilPapers
Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part C 41 (3):292-299 (2010)
Critics of animal modeling have advanced a variety of arguments against the validity of the practice. The point of one such form of argument is to establish that animal modeling is pointless and therefore immoral. In this article, critical arguments of this form are divided into three types, the pseudoscience argument, the disanalogy argument, and the predictive validity argument. I contend that none of these criticisms currently succeed, nor are they likely to. However, the connection between validity and morality is important, suggesting that critical efforts would be instructive if they addressed it in a more nuanced way
|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
Imre Lakatos (1978). The Methodology of Scientific Research Programmes. Cambridge University Press.
David Hume (1977). Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding. Clarendon Press.
Cameron Shelley (2002). Analogy Counterarguments and the Acceptability of Analogical Hypotheses. British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 53 (4):477-496.
Cameron Shelley (2006). Analogical Reasoning with Animal Models in Biomedical Research. In L. Magnani (ed.), Model-Based Reasoning in Science and Engineering. College Publications 203--213.
Robert W. Leader & Dennis Stark (1987). The Importance of Animals in Biomedical Research. Perspectives in Biology and Medicine 30 (4):470.
Citations of this work BETA
Ray Greek & Niall Shanks (2011). Complex Systems, Evolution, and Animal Models. Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part C 42 (4):542-544.
Similar books and articles
Ray Greek, Annalea Pippus & Lawrence Hansen (2012). The Nuremberg Code Subverts Human Health and Safety by Requiring Animal Modeling. BMC Medical Ethics 13 (1):16-.
David E. W. Fenner (1998). Animal Rights and the Problem of Proximity. International Journal of Applied Philosophy 12 (1):51-61.
Michael Naas (2010). Derridas Flair (For the Animals to Follow...). Research in Phenomenology 40 (2):219-242.
Mark H. Bernstein (2004). Without a Tear: Our Tragic Relationship with Animals. University of Illinois Press.
David DeGrazia (2002). Animal Rights: A Very Short Introduction. Oxford University Press.
Joel Marks (2010). Live Free or Die. [REVIEW] Animal Law 17 (1):243-250.
Marc Bekoff (2003). Consciousness and Self in Animals: Some Reflections. Zygon 38 (2):229-245.
Kelly Oliver (2010). Animal Ethics: Toward an Ethics of Responsiveness. Research in Phenomenology 40 (2):267-280.
Elisa Aaltola (2002). Other Animal Ethics and the Demand for Difference. Environmental Values 11 (2):193 - 209.
Peter Singer (2012). Animal Liberation at 30. In Stephen Holland (ed.), Arguing About Bioethics. Routledge 185.
Cary Wolfe (2013). Before the Law: Humans and Other Animals in a Biopolitical Frame. The University of Chicago Press.
Ruiping Fan (2010). How Should We Treat Animals? A Confucian Reflection. Dao: A Journal of Comparative Philosophy 9 (1):79-96.
Mark Maller (2009). Animals and the Problem of Evil in Recent Theodicies. Sophia 48 (3):299-317.
Elisa Aaltola (2005). Animal Ethics and Interest Conflicts. Ethics and the Environment 10 (1):19-48.
Added to index2010-09-12
Total downloads159 ( #13,368 of 1,726,249 )
Recent downloads (6 months)144 ( #4,618 of 1,726,249 )
How can I increase my downloads?