Applying Evidential Pluralism to the social sciences

Shan, Yafeng; Williamson, Jon

doi:10.1007/s13194-021-00415-z

Cited by 21 publications

(12 citation statements)

References 76 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…I agree with this and add an element to the global picture: underlying mechanisms can be more or less stable, which warrants singling out some claims as laws. This also is what my account adds to the idea of evidential pluralism—in medicine and in the social sciences—as it is elaborated and defended in Shan and Williamson (2021).…”

Section: Empirical Laws In Political Science: the Global Picturesupporting

confidence: 65%

On Laws of Politics and How to Establish Them

Weber

2022

APSC

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Alfred Cuzán proposed five “laws of politics” that allegedly govern elections in democracies. Drawing from insights in the general philosophy of science and the philosophy of the social sciences, I argue that—although his empirical evidence is impressive—he failed to develop a convincing argument for calling the five theses “laws.” This article discusses other examples that often are claimed to be “laws of politics” and describes the global picture supporting this analysis.

show abstract

Section: Empirical Laws In Political Science: the Global Picturesupporting

confidence: 65%

On Laws of Politics and How to Establish Them

Weber

2022

APSC

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Indeed, the lessons learned here apply beyond medicine. For example, Shan and Williamson (2021) argue that the basic epistemological framework underpinning EBM+, namely a particular form of epistemological pluralism, can also be applied to the social sciences, including to evidence-based policy (EBP), which leads to EBP+, and to basic social sciences research, where the framework can be viewed as providing foundations for mixed methods research.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

The feasibility and malleability of EBM+

Williamson

2020

THEORIA

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The EBM+ programme is an attempt to improve the way in which present-day evidence-based medicine (EBM) assesses causal claims: according to EBM+, mechanistic studies should be scrutinised alongside association studies. This paper addresses two worries about EBM+: (i) that it is not feasible in practice, and (ii) that it is too malleable, i.e., its results depend on subjective choices that need to be made in order to implement the procedure. Several responses to these two worries are considered and evaluated. The paper also discusses the question of whether we should have confidence in medical interventions, in the light of Stegenga's arguments for medical nihilism.

show abstract

“…Research is also emerging advocating for the use of evidence of mechanism in the social sciences to develop Evidence‐Based policies. 6 The goal of this paper is aligned with the goals of Aronson et al 4 : by clarifying the role of mechanistic evidence as it relates to exercise related interventions, and arguing for its explicit evaluation in addition to evidence from association studies, sport and health related outcomes can be improved, furthering the goals of sports medicine, and SES.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 98%

“…Research is also emerging advocating for the use of evidence of mechanism in the social sciences to develop Evidence-Based policies. 6 The goal of this paper is aligned with the goals of Aronson et al 4 : by clarifying the role of mechanistic evidence as it relates to exercise related interventions, and arguing for its explicit evaluation in addition to evidence from association studies, sport and health related outcomes can be improved, furthering the goals of sports medicine, and SES. Before continuing, some clarificatory work must be done.…”

mentioning

confidence: 98%

Mechanistic evidence and exercise interventions: Causal claims, extrapolation, and implementation

Levack‐Payne

2022

Evaluation Clinical Practice

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Rationale Exercise interventions and policies are widely prescribed in both sport and healthcare. Research investigating exercise interventions and policies is generally conducted using an Evidence‐Based framework, placing an emphasis on evidence gathered from randomised controlled trials (RCTs). Aims and objectives To explore the idea that, in addition to the assessment of evidence from RCTs when investigating exercise interventions, mechanistic studies ought to also be assessed and considered. Methods This article assesses the rationale supporting the use of RCTs as evidence for exercise interventions, and the use of evidence of mechanisms in establishing efficacy, determining external validity, and tailoring interventions. Results and conclusions The article argues that evidence from mechanistic studies ought to be considered alongside evidence from RCTs because: as RCTs investigating exercise interventions tend to be of low quality, mechanistic studies ought to be used to reinforce the evidence base; further, evidence from mechanistic studies is highly useful for both questions of extrapolation and implementation. This article argues for this on theoretical grounds, and also draws on a number of case studies.

show abstract

Applying Evidential Pluralism to the social sciences

Cited by 21 publications

References 76 publications

On Laws of Politics and How to Establish Them

On Laws of Politics and How to Establish Them

The feasibility and malleability of EBM+

Mechanistic evidence and exercise interventions: Causal claims, extrapolation, and implementation

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About