CFP: The workshop investigates the complex relationship between scientific pluralism, epistemic diversity and scientific progress, both theoretically and through the examination of case studies. more info...
The evidence-based medicine (EBM) movement began in the 1980s, reached its peak perhaps in the 1990s, and has since then enjoyed the status of orthodoxy, despite many criticisms being raised among medical practitioners and researchers. Philosophers of medicine have frequently criticized EBM’s hierarchies and rigid precepts, especially the “gold standard” status of randomized controlled trials (RCTs). A pluralistic approach to evidence in medicine has been increasingly popular in recent years, in which mechanistic evidence and reasoning, observational studies of many kinds and RCTs are assessed for value on a case-by-case basis. But does this trend away from the EBM hierarchy go too far and risk the reintroduction of the same biased, motivated evidence-gathering practices that originally motivated the EBM movement? What light can recent experiences in medicine and public health (e.g., during the covid-19 pandemic) shed on these issues?
April 5, 2025 @ 8:00 am - April 6, 2025 @ 5:00 pm EDT
Senior Visiting Fellow Conference by Carl Hoefer
The evidence-based medicine (EBM) movement began in the 1980s, reached its peak perhaps in the 1990s, and has since then enjoyed the status of orthodoxy, despite many criticisms being raised among medical practitioners and researchers. Philosophers of medicine have frequently criticized EBM’s hierarchies and rigid precepts, especially the “gold standard” status of randomized controlled trials (RCTs). A pluralistic approach to evidence in medicine has been increasingly popular in recent years, in which mechanistic evidence and reasoning, observational studies of many kinds and RCTs are assessed for value on a case-by-case basis. But does this trend away from the EBM hierarchy go too far and risk the reintroduction of the same biased, motivated evidence-gathering practices that originally motivated the EBM movement? What light can recent experiences in medicine and public health (e.g., during the covid-19 pandemic) shed on these issues?
Call for Abstracts
We invite papers which address topics related to evidence in medicine, broadly speaking. These include, but are not limited to:
Defenses (or criticisms) of the supposed superiority of RCTs over observational studies, mechanistic studies, modeling, and individual clinical judgment;
Discussions of lessons that philosophy of medicine or EBM can learn from recent experiences;
Papers offering theoretical discussions of procedures for integrating and evaluating evidence from different sources;
The merits and limitations of emerging kinds of medical evidence, such as adaptive trials, so-called real-world evidence, precision or personalized medicine research, and big data research
Evidence in diverse contexts, such as clinical practice, alternative healthcare, drug or device regulation, public health, and health policy.
Abstracts should be between 500-800 words long and should be sent by November 17th to:SVFC-2025@gmail.com
Holly K. Andersen, Simon Fraser University, Philosophy
Dana Matthiessen, University of Minnesota, Center for the Philosophy of Science
Dzintra Ullis, University of Pittsburgh, HPS
Location: Center for Philosophy of Science, Cathedral of Learning, University of Pittsburgh
Measurement is a central activity in the acquisition of scientific knowledge. With increasing attention to scientific practice, there is renewed interest determining what contributes to the reliability of measurement, its accuracy, and precision. The epistemology and metaphysics of measurement raise fundamental questions about the relationship between scientific theories and models, human actions, and the natural world. These include:
1. The representational and informational character of measurements (What do they measure?)
2. The evaluation of measurement outcomes (How should we assess the validity or reliability of a measurement process?)
3. The objectivity of measurements (How is the measurement process guided by theory? How is it independent? What are the implications for the status of measurement as evidence?)
This workshop will explore how a philosophically pragmatist epistemology and metaphysics addresses these questions, and how pragmatist frameworks might transform our understanding of the character and constituents of successful scientific measurement.
