What kind of knowledge is medical knowledge? Can medicine be explained scientifically? Is disease a scientific concept, or do explanations of disease depend on values? What is ‘evidence-based’ medicine? Are advances in neuroscience bringing us closer to a scientific understanding of the mind? The nature of medicine raises fundamental questions about explanation, causation, knowledge and ontology – questions that are central to philosophy as well as medicine. In this book Paul R. Thompson and Ross E. G. Upshur introduce the fundamental (...) issues in philosophy of medicine for those coming to the subject for the first time. They introduce and explain the following key topics: Understanding the physician-patient relationship: the phenomenology of the medical encounter. Models and theories in biology and medicine: what role do theories play in medicine? Are they similar to scientific theories? Randomised controlled trials: can scientific experiments be replicated in clinical medicine? What are the philosophical criticisms levelled at RCTs? The concept of evidence in medical research: what do we mean by ‘Evidence-based medicine?’ Should all medicine be based on evidence? Causation in medicine What do advances in neuroscience reveal about the relationship between mind and body? Defining health and disease: are explanations of disease objective or do they depend on values? Evolutionary medicine: what is the role of evolutionary biology in understanding medicine? Is it relevant? Extensive use of empirical examples and case studies is made throughout the book. These include debates about smoking and cancer, the use of placebos in randomised controlled trials and controversies about research into the causes of HIV and autism. This is an indispendable introduction to those teaching philosophy of medicine and philosophy of science. (shrink)

Humans have been modifying plants and animals for millennia. The dawn of molecular genetics, however, has kindled intense public scrutiny and controversy. Crops, and the food products which include them, have dominated molecular modification in agriculture. Organisations have made unsubstantiated claims and scare mongering is common. In this textbook Paul Thompson presents a clear account of the significant issues - identifying harms and benefits, analysing and managing risk - which lie beneath the cacophony of public controversy. His comprehensive analysis looks (...) especially at genetically modified organisms, and includes an explanation of the scientific background, an analysis of ideological objections, a discussion of legal and ethical concerns, a suggested alternative - organic agriculture - and an examination of the controversy's impact on sub-Saharan African countries. His book will be of interest to students and other readers in philosophy, biology, biotechnology and public policy. (shrink)

Evolution - both the fact that it occurred and the theory describing the mechanisms by which it occurred - is an intrinsic and central component in modern biology. Theodosius Dobzhansky captures this well in the much-quoted title of his 1973 paper 'Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution'. The correctness of this assertion is even more obvious today: philosophers of biology and biologists agree that the fact of evolution is undeniable and that the theory of evolution (...) explains that fact. Such a theory has far-reaching implications. In this volume, eleven distinguished scholars address the conceptual, metaphysical and epistemological richness of the theory and its ethical and religious impact, exploring topics including DNA barcoding, three grand challenges of human evolution, functionalism, historicity, design, evolution and development, and religion and secular humanism. The volume will be of great interest to those studying philosophy of biology and evolutionary biology. (shrink)

Rolf Gruner has argued that natural selection plus time does not entail, and hence does not explain, evolution. This according to Gruner is the result of the undeniable fact that evolution involves an increase in the complexity of organisms:Since increase in complexity is part of the concept of evolution, evolution is not explained by the theory of natural selection. The Darwinian or Neo-Darwinian affirms the reality of evolution and seems to believe that it can be accounted for in terms of (...) natural selection. But it could be accounted for in this way only if the assumption were justified that generally the more complex organism is better adapted to its environment, and thus stands a better chance to survive and breed, than the less complex organism. And this assumption is not justified. “The more complex, the better adapted” will not do even as a rule of thumb, as most biologists today will be prepared to admit. (shrink)

Recent interest in the evolution of the social contract is extended by providing a throughly naturalistic, evolutionary account of the biological underpinnings of a social contract theory of morality. This social contract theory of morality provides an evolutionary justification of the primacy of a moral principle of maximisation of the opportunities for evolutionary reproductive success, where maximising opportunities does not entail an obligation on individuals to choose to maximise their ERS. From that primary principle, the moral principles of inclusion, individual (...) sovereignty and equality can be derived. The implications of these principles, within contractevolism, are explored through an examination of patriarchy, individual sovereignty and copulatory choices, and overpopulation and extinction. Contractevolism is grounded in evolutionary dynamics that resulted in humans and human societies. The most important behavioural consequences of evolution to contractevolism are reciprocity, cooperation, empathy, and the most important cognitive consequences are reason and behavioural modification. (shrink)

Among the numerous criticisms of sociobiology is the criticism that it is not genuine science. This paper defends sociobiology against this criticism. There are three aspects to the defense. First, it is argued that the testability criterion of pseudoscience is generally problematic as a criterion and that even if accepted it fails to mark sociobiology as a pseudoscience. Second, it is argued that Thagard's more comprehensive and sophisticated criterion of pseudoscience fails to mark sociobiology as a pseudoscience. Third, a positive (...) case for accepting sociobiology as genuine science is presented. (shrink)

Medical explanations of socially maladaptive behaviors most often involve an appeal to neuro-physiological models. One consequence of the appeal to such models is a lack of attention to the social character of the behaviors. It is, I argue, the social character of the behaviors that, even accepting a neuro-physiological etiology, makes classification and, hence, explanation of these disorders controversial and suspect. At the heart of the problem is the difficulty, resulting from the social aspects of the disorder, in fulfilling the (...) logical conditions of the analogical arguments employed in the explanations. The theoretical points of the paper are illustrated by a discussion of hyperactivity. CiteULike Connotea Del.icio.us What's this? (shrink)