Hadi Samadi
Abstract
This article is an evolutionary defense of Evidence-Based Medicine (EBM), which is an approach to medicine that considers researches published in reputable medical journals as the main basis of therapeutic interventions. In this approach, physician’s personal experiences and her intuition, and ...
Read More
This article is an evolutionary defense of Evidence-Based Medicine (EBM), which is an approach to medicine that considers researches published in reputable medical journals as the main basis of therapeutic interventions. In this approach, physician’s personal experiences and her intuition, and mechanical explanations for medical interventions are deemphasized. Since the advent of EBM, many criticisms have been made on it. Two of them will be mentioned in this article. First, it has been claimed that the replication crisis is a threat for EBM. Second, according to critics, EBM is based on a kind of extreme empiricism, while there are many criticisms for this kind of empiricism. From an evolutionary point of view some rejoinders have been offered to these criticisms. We will also see how to update the theoretical foundations of EBM in the light of these criticisms. In this regard, a defense is presented that in two cases, medical implications can be carried out rationalistically, that is, by considering general medical theories: first, to abandon or ignore any "seemingly" harmless medical advice; and two, by rejecting unqualified articles. At the end, it is mentioned that although by doing so we may reduce the speed of new data entrance in medicine, but from an evolutionary point of view, this level of conservatism is necessary to maintain the credibility of medicine.
vahid gerami; Mohsen Jahed; mahmood rasooli
Abstract
There are two main approaches on evolutionary epistemology: analogical or Spencerian approach, literal or Darwinian approach. In the first approach, one attempts to argue that process of culture and science growth is analogue to main process of organisms growth in biology which based on natural selection; ...
Read More
There are two main approaches on evolutionary epistemology: analogical or Spencerian approach, literal or Darwinian approach. In the first approach, one attempts to argue that process of culture and science growth is analogue to main process of organisms growth in biology which based on natural selection; while in the second approach, one attempts to argue that not only growth and evolution of animals and humans physical body is product and result of natural selection, but also growth of their mind structures is result of natural selection. The main question of this essay is that if the Ruse's claim and his arguments in rejection of analogical approach are strong enough or not. Many thinkers support this approach, including Karl Popper, Kuhn Thomas, Stephen Toulmin, Campbell Donald and David Hull. Ruse believe that although there are analogies between growth of organisms and growth of human knowledge, but there are also significant disanalogies between them which makes analogy between this two fields are weaken, so analogical approach is not defensible by Ruse. We agree with the core of Ruse's claim, that is, the analogical approach in evolutionary epistemology is implausible, but we believe that his arguments in refuting some versions of this approach such as kuhn's version and Camdell's, are failed.
