Evaluating evidential pluralism in epidemiology: mechanistic evidence in exposome research

History and Philosophy of the Life Sciences 41 (1):4 (2019)
  Copy   BIBTEX

Abstract

In current philosophical discussions on evidence in the medical sciences, epidemiology has been used to exemplify a specific version of evidential pluralism. According to this view, known as the Russo–Williamson Thesis, evidence of both difference-making and mechanisms is produced to make causal claims in the health sciences. In this paper, I present an analysis of data and evidence in epidemiological practice, with a special focus on research on the exposome, and I cast doubt on the extent to which evidential pluralism holds in this case. I start by focusing on the claim that molecular data allows for the production of mechanistic evidence. On the basis of a close look at the ways in which molecular data is used in exposome research, I caution against interpretations in terms of mechanistic evidence. Secondly, I expand my critical remarks on the thesis by addressing the conditions under which data is categorised as evidence in exposome research. I argue that these show that the classification of a dataset as a type of evidence is dependent on the ways in which the data is used. This is in contrast with the approach of evidential pluralism, where evidence is classified in different types on the basis of its intrinsic properties. Finally, I come back to what I consider the core of the thesis and suggest that the epidemiological research analysed in the paper indicates different interpretations of evidential pluralism and its applicability in the health sciences.

Other Versions

No versions found

Similar books and articles

Making evidential claims in epidemiology: Three strategies for the study of the exposome.Stefano Canali - 2020 - Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part C: Studies in History and Philosophy of Biological and Biomedical Sciences 82:101248.
Applying Evidential Pluralism to the Social Sciences.Yafeng Shan & Jon Williamson - 2021 - European Journal for Philosophy of Science 11 (4):1-27.
The Russo–Williamson Theses in the social sciences: Causal inference drawing on two types of evidence.François Claveau - 2012 - Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part C: Studies in History and Philosophy of Biological and Biomedical Sciences 43 (4):806-813.
A Tool-Based View of Theories of Evidence.Chien-Yang Huang - 2020 - Dissertation, Durham University
What Is New about the Exposome? Exploring Scientific Change in Contemporary Epidemiology.Stefano Canali - 2020 - International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health 2879 (17).

Analytics

Added to PP
2019-02-13

Downloads
573 (#48,913)

6 months
102 (#59,405)

Historical graph of downloads
How can I increase my downloads?

Author's Profile

Stefano Canali
Politecnico di Milano

References found in this work

Data-Centric Biology: A Philosophical Study.Sabina Leonelli - 2016 - London: University of Chicago Press.
Saving the phenomena.James Bogen & James Woodward - 1988 - Philosophical Review 97 (3):303-352.
What is a mechanism? Thinking about mechanisms across the sciences.Phyllis McKay Illari & Jon Williamson - 2012 - European Journal for Philosophy of Science 2 (1):119-135.
Evaluating evidence of mechanisms in medicine.Veli-Pekka Parkkinen, Christian Wallmann, Michael Wilde, Brendan Clarke, Phyllis Illari, Michael P. Kelly, Charles Norell, Federica Russo, Beth Shaw & Jon Williamson - 2018 - Dordrecht, Netherlands: Springer. Edited by Brendan Clarke, Phyllis Illari, Michael P. Kelly, Charles Norell, Federica Russo, Beth Shaw, Christian Wallmann, Michael Wilde & Jon Williamson.
Interpreting causality in the health sciences.Federica Russo & Jon Williamson - 2007 - International Studies in the Philosophy of Science 21 (2):157 – 170.

View all 32 references / Add more references