Applied Epistemology and Argumentation in Epidemiology 1 Capilano College
نویسندگان
چکیده
The general goal is to encourage informal logicians and those interested in applied epistemology to look at epidemiology as a paradigmatic science crucially dependant on argumentation to justify its claims. Three specific goals are: 1. exemplify applied epistemology by looking critically at causal argumentation in epidemiology, 2. show that justification of causal claims in epidemiology is a form of “argument to the best explanation,” 3. show that there could be a symbiotic relationship between epidemiology and work in various applied reasoning disciplines such as argumentation and “applied epistemology.” Résumé: Mon but général est d’encourager les chercheurs en logique non formelle et ceux qui s’intéressent à l’épistémologie appliquée d’examiner l’épidémiologie comme une science paradigmatique qui dépend de façon importante de l’argumentation pour justifier ses jugements. J’ai trois buts : 1. présenter un cas d’épidémiologie appliquée en examinant de façon critique l’argumentation causale en épidémiologie, 2. démontrer que la justification de juge-ments causaux en épidémiologie est une forme d’«argumentation à partir de la meilleure explication», 3. montrer qu’il pourrait y avoir un rapport symbiotique entre l’épidémiologie et les recherches dans diverse disciplines sur le raisonnement telles que l’argumentation et l’épistémologie appliquée ». © Informal Logic Vol. 26, No. 1 (2006): pp. 41-62.
منابع مشابه
Applied Epistemology and Argumentation in Epidemiology
On other occasions I have argued that ‘informal logic’ should not really be seen as a kind of ‘weak’ form of logic, but rather as ‘applied epistemology.’ This categorization is intended to create an analogy with applied ethics. Applied ethics has created a robust research project and stimulated ethical thinking both in and outside philosophy. As with applied ethics, I believe that as philosophe...
متن کاملMistletoe: From Basic Research to Clinical Outcomes in Cancer and Other Indications
1 Research Institute Havelhöhe (FIH), Havelhöhe Hospital, 14089 Berlin, Germany 2Department of Oncology, Havelhöhe Hospital, 14089 Berlin, Germany 3 Institute for Social Medicine, Epidemiology and Institute for Social Medicine, Epidemiology and Health Economics, Charité University Medicine, 14089 Berlin, Germany 4 Institute of Integrative Medicine, University of Witten/Herdecke, 58313 Herdecke,...
متن کاملLaw, Logic, Rhetoric: A Procedural Model of Legal Argumentation
Legal argumentation can be modeled using logic, but in this chapter it is claimed that logic alone does not suffice. A model should also take the rhetoric nature of legal argumentation into account. DiaLaw is such a model: a formal, procedural model in which the logical and rhetorical aspects of argumentation are combined. The core of this chapter consists of a description of the basic concepts...
متن کاملRedefining Knowledge in a Way Suitable for Argumentation Theory
Knowledge plays an important role in argumentation. Yet, recent work shows that standard conceptions of knowledge in epistemology may not be entirely suitable for argumentation. This paper explores the role of knowledge in argumentation, and proposes a notion of knowledge that promises to be more suitable for argumentation by taking account of: its dynamic nature, the defeasibility of our commi...
متن کاملSyncretic argumentation by lattice homomorphism and fusion
In this paper, we attempt to formalize a novel approach to the syncretic argumentation, which allows agents with different epistemology to engage in argumentation, taking into account the Golden Rule in the ethics of reciprocity and Confucius’ Golden Rule. We address this new argumentation framework in two ways. One is by introducing the lattice homomorphism on truth-values (epistemic states) o...
متن کامل