Epidemiological reasoning. Comments on 'Popper's philosophy for epidemiologists' by Carol Buck.

The two quotations summarize my reactions to Dr. Carol Buck's stimulating paper on 'Popper's philosophy for epidemiologists'. There would be little disagreement as to the desirability of enriching the scope and discipline of epidemiology by applying the ideas of several of the philosophers of science. On the other hand, might there not be a danger of rigidity, of too strict an application of principles derived from the exact sciences to the detriment of the broad development of our discipline? In the present case, why pick on Popper? To play down inductive reasoning and to demote the value of forming hypotheses based on observation could be detrimental to the art, if not to the science as well. If Carol Buck's intention is to make a plea for stricter scientific methods in epidemiological research (and who would disagree?) are there not sufficient lessons to be learned from the masters of epidemiology themselves ?