Medical Epistemology

Volume 20, Issue 6, June 2020, Page 44-47.

Various historical sources from the Renaissance--including transcripts of trials for witchcraft, writings on demonology and textbooks of pharmaceutical botany--describe vegetal ointments prepared by women accused of witchcraft and endowed with marked psychoactive properties. Here, we examine the botanical composition and the possible pharmacological actions of these ointments. The results of our study suggest that recipes for narcotic and mind-altering salves were known to Renaissance folk healers, and were in part distinct from homologous preparations of educated medicine. In addition, our study (...) reveals an unexpected connection of these vegetal psychotropes with archaic chtonic beliefs, confirming the tight association between rituals and cults entered on the Underworld and the image of the Medieval witch. (shrink)

Neonatal pediatrics has made stunning and completely unprecedented progress in recent years. Nonetheless, an increasing number of voices now ask, Where is this field of medicine going? Is it, dare one ask, even headed in the right direction? These are reasonable questions, but first we need to know where this subspecialty of pediatrics has been. The current phenomenon is all the more remarkable because it differs so completely from the past.

Within the evidence-based medicine construct, clinical expertise is acknowledged to be both derived from primary experience and necessary for optimal medical practice. Primary experience in medical practice, however, remains undervalued. Clinicians’ primary experience tends to be dismissed by EBM as unsystematic or anecdotal, a source of bias rather than knowledge, never serving as the “best” evidence to support a clinical decision. The position that clinical expertise is necessary but that primary experience is untrustworthy in clinical decision-making is epistemically incoherent. Here (...) we argue for the value and utility of knowledge gained from primary experience for the practice of medicine. Primary experience provides knowledge necessary to diagnose, treat, and assess response in individual patients. Hierarchies of evidence, when advanced as guides for clinical decisions, mistake the relationship between propositional and experiential knowledge. We argue that primary experience represents a kind of medical knowledge distinct from the propositional knowledge produced by clinical research, both of which are crucial to determining the best diagnosis and course of action for particular patients. (shrink)

The episodes of cowpox inoculation (1798) and rabies preventive treatment (1885) are celebrated as the landmark of modern medicine. Paradoxically, these two advances have been accomplished without any theoretical breakthrough in the understanding of immunity. Going further, they were made possible by a long past of empirical procedures among which smallpox inoculation played an outstanding role. The paper explores the paradox of 'Immunization without Immunology' and Pasteur's reconstruction of the past, through his successful use of a metaphor. 'Vaccine', originally linked (...) to the jennerian method, was meant by Pasteur to designate a general program of virus attenuation. The paper investigates the scientific factors accounting for why viruses played such a leading role in immunization. The longlasting immunity, the easy transmission from man to man characteristic of smallpox allowing in vivo experimentation, may explain how crude procedures of early immunizers shaped scientific ideologies and strategies of public health and family initiated modern 'vaccinology'. (shrink)

How is scientific data used to represent phenomena and as evidence for claims about phenomena? In this paper, I propose that a specific type of claims – evidential claims – is involved in data practices to define and restrict the representational and evidential content of a dataset. I present an account of data practices in the epidemiology of the exposome based on the notion of evidential claims, which helps unpack the approaches, assumptions and warrants that connect different stages of research. (...) I identify three different strategies to generate different types of evidential claims in this case. The macro strategy, which individuates the dataset that serves as the initial evidential space for research. The micro strategy, which is used to generate evidential claims about the microscopic and individual component of target phenomena. The association strategy, that uses evidence from the other strategies to identify a dataset as representation of the different levels and relations of exposure and disease. Differentiating between these strategies sheds light on the multi-faceted landscape of biomedical research on environment and health; and the roles of data and evidence in the process of inquiry. (shrink)

This paper provides an analysis of Franz Brentano’s thesis that psychology employs a distinctive method, which sets it apart from physiology. The aim of the paper is two-fold: First, I situate Brentano’s thesis (and the broader metaphysical system that underwrites it) within the context of specific debates about the nature and status of psychology, arguing that we regard him as engaging in a form of boundary work. Second, I explore the relevance of Brentano’s considerations to more recent debates about autonomy (...) on the one hand and theoretical and/or methodological integration on the other. I argue that Brentano puts his finger on the idea that an integrated research process presupposes the existence of distinct methods and approaches, and that he highlights the philosophical challenge of accounting for such distinct methods. I suggest that Brentano’s ideas offer unconventional perspectives on current debates, in particular regarding first-person methods and the investigative process in cognitive science. (shrink)

The influence of Kurt Goldstein on the thinking of Georges Canguilhem extended throughout his entire work. This paper seeks to examine this relationship in order to conduct a study of the norm as a nexus or connection between the concept and life. Consequently, this work will be a reflection on the approach to life as a normative activity and self-realization. For this, it will be necessary to redefine the concepts of health and disease, and make a crossover between the two. (...) At the end of this trajectory, it will be found that these concepts can explain the identity between the concept and life, which leads to the unexpected conclusion that the cure is ultimately self-healing. (shrink)

The modern concept of ideology was established by the liberal politician and philosopher Destutt de Tracy, with the objective of creating an all-embracing and general science of ideas, which followed the sensualist and empiricist trend initiated by Locke that culminated in the positivism of Comte. Natural selection and immunity are two key concepts in the history of biology that were strongly based on the Malthusian concept of struggle for existence. This concept wrongly assumed that population grew faster than the means (...) of existence. This “natural” law contained implicitly the idea that the poor and least gifted would not survive. This idea led to the progressive development of the concept of natural selection, whose definitive version was given by Darwin. Mechnikov took the concepts of struggle for existence and natural selection and conceived infectious diseases as a struggle between a host and its invader, the so-called phagocytosis theory. This theory created the necessity to possess mechanisms to discriminate between the own and the foreign, and led to the conception of the immune self. These concepts were not developed from ideas coming from perceptions or sensations, but from ideas coming from their values: individual interest, inevitable inequality, property, utility and profit. Values are ideals that constitute an ideological matrix which exerts a numinous activity and influence the development of our future actions. In consequence, science and its practice cannot avoid and ignore the values that drive them and impulse them towards certain directions. (shrink)

The concordance of results that are “robust” across multiple scientific modalities is widely considered to play a critical role in the epistemology of science. But what should we make of those cases where such multimodal evidence is discordant? Jacob Stegenga has recently argued that robustness is “worse than useless” in these cases, suggesting that “different kinds of evidence cannot be combined in a coherent way.” In this article I respond to this critique and illustrate the critical methodological role that robustness (...) plays as an aim of scientific inquiry. (shrink)

Recent discourses about the legitimacy of homeopathy have focused on its scientific plausibility, mechanism of action, and evidence base. These, frequently, conclude not only that homeopathy is scientifically baseless, but that it is “unethical.” They have also diminished patients’ perspectives, values, and preferences. We contend that these critics confuse epistemic questions with questions of ethics, misconstrue the moral status of homeopaths, and have an impoverished idea of ethics—one that fails to account either for the moral worth of care and of (...) relationships or for the perspectives, values, and preferences of patients. Utilitarian critics, in particular, endeavour to present an objective evaluation—a type of moral calculus—quantifying the utilities and disutilities of homeopathy as a justification for the exclusion of homeopathy from research and health care. But these critiques are built upon a narrow formulation of evidence and care and a diminished episteme that excludes the values and preferences of researchers, homeopaths, and patients engaged in the practice of homeopathy. We suggest that homeopathy is ethical as it fulfils the needs and expectations of many patients; may be practiced safely and prudentially; values care and the virtues of the therapeutic relationship; and provides important benefits for patients. (shrink)

In this important new book in the IPPP series, a group of leading thinkers in psychiatry, psychology, and philosophy offer alternative perspectives that address both the scientific and clinical aspects of psychiatric validation, emphasizing throughout their philosophical and historical considerations.

Psychiatry has been subject to major changes in the last 150 years. This book explores the forces that have shaped these changes and how they have impacted on the psychiatric profession in this time. The result is a dynamic discussion about the nature of psychiatric disorders, and a book that is compelling reading.

Essay review of C. Timmermann A history of lung cancer: The recalcitrant disease (Palgrave Macmillan, Basingstoke (2014)) and C. Timmermann, E. Toon (Eds.), Cancer patients, cancer pathways: historical and social perspectives (Palgrave Macmillan, Basingstoke (2012)).

Leonard L. Heston, M.D. is a Professor of Psychiatry at The University of Washington and is the Director of The Washington Institute for Mental Illness Training and Research. Dr. Heston writes about "a QUIET revolution [which] has been occurring in psychiatry" . Dr. Heston's "new psychiatry" focuses on the "actual study of the brain as a biologic tissue" and avoids "elaborate theorizing, guru-isms, blaming of mothers for unhappiness, backbiting among contending schools, or [popular and simple] prescriptions for instant mental health. (...) Such topics were a product of prescience..." . Heston wishes to distance himself from traditional Freudianism. Most importantly, according to Heston, his biological and scientific psychiatry portends greater hope for the "nearly one person in five [who] will develop a major psychiatric illness...". (shrink)

After 1700, astrology lost the respect it once commanded in medical circles. But the belief that the heavens influenced bodily health persisted – even in learned medicine – until well into the nineteenth century. The continuing vitality of these ideas owed much to the new empirical and mechanical outlook of their proponents. Taking their cue from the work of Robert Boyle and Richard Mead, a number of British practitioners amassed statistical evidence which purported to prove the influence of the Moon (...) upon fevers and other diseases. Such ideas flourished in the colonies and in the medical services of the armed forces, but their exponents were not marginal men. Some, like James Lind, were widely respected and drew support for their views from such influential figures as Erasmus Darwin. (shrink)

Mucchielli clearly and systematically reviews the history of theories of psychosomatic medicine, criticizing the dominant modern ideas such as "conversion," "régression," and "inadaptation." The failure to eliminate dualisms has been chiefly the failure to discern distinct levels of existence and the complex relations between them: to assert a difference between the organic level and the conscious level need not lead us into an impass of dualism. Mucchielli shows that not all psychosomatic disorders are psycogenetic, but that there are organic illnesses (...) with definite organic etiology. He uses Descartes as a model for style and organization, and revives the relatively ignored Descartes of "the third idea of medicine" and "the union of soul and body," showing how and why Descartes himself did not develop an adequate medical theory of psychosomatic illness. The critical discussions of Dunbar, Alexander, Freud, Pavlov, Boss and others are sharp and convincing.—C. D. (shrink)

The paper investigates the epistemological and communicative competences the experts need to use and communicate evidence in the reasoning process leading to diagnosis. The diagnosis and diagnosis communication are presented as intertwined processes that should be jointly addressed in medical consultations, to empower patients’ compliance in illness management. The paper presents defeasible reasoning as specific to the diagnostic praxis, showing how this type of reasoning threatens effective diagnosis communication and entails that we should understand diagnostic evidence as defeasible as well. (...) It argues that metaphors might be effective communicative devices to let the patients understand the relevant defeasors in the diagnostic reasoning process, helping to improve effective diagnosis communication, and also encouraging a change in patients’ beliefs and attitudes on their own experience of illness and illness’ management. (shrink)