Abstract:Russo and Williamson [2007. "Interpreting Causality in the Health Sciences." International Studies in the Philosophy of Science 21: 157-170] put forward the following thesis: in order to establish a causal claim in medicine, one normally needs to establish both that the putative cause and putative effect are appropriately correlated and that there is some underlying mechanism that can account for this correlation. I argue that, although the Russo-Williamson thesis conflicts with the tenets of present-day evide… Show more
“…However, evidence of underlying mechanisms may still provide evidence of effectiveness by playing a role in an alternative reasoning process. Indeed, evidential pluralists have argued that evidence of underlying mechanisms can provide mechanistic evidence for the effectiveness of a medical intervention, at least when it is taken together with other types of evidence, for example, evidence of correlation from comparative clinical studies . Evidential pluralists emphasize the complimentary nature of evidence of mechanisms and evidence of correlation (p351): Evidence of a linking mechanism helps show that the overall relationship between A and B is genuinely causal.…”
Section: Mechanistic Reasoning and Mechanistic Evidencementioning
confidence: 99%
“…It will also be argued that in this case study, the available evidence of underlying mechanisms did in fact play a role in providing evidence in favour of a medical intervention. This paper therefore adds a novel and recent case study to the literature in support of evidential pluralism in medicine …”
Some philosophers have argued that evidence of underlying mechanisms does not provide evidence for the effectiveness of a medical intervention. One such argument appeals to the unreliability of mechanistic reasoning. However, mechanistic reasoning is not the only way that evidence of mechanisms might provide evidence of effectiveness. A more reliable type of reasoning may be distinguished by appealing to recent work on evidential pluralism in the epistemology of medicine. A case study from virology provides an example of this so‐called reinforced reasoning in medicine. It is argued that in this case study, the available evidence of underlying mechanisms did in fact play a role in providing evidence in favour of a medical intervention. This paper therefore adds a novel and recent case study to the literature in support of evidential pluralism in medicine.
“…However, evidence of underlying mechanisms may still provide evidence of effectiveness by playing a role in an alternative reasoning process. Indeed, evidential pluralists have argued that evidence of underlying mechanisms can provide mechanistic evidence for the effectiveness of a medical intervention, at least when it is taken together with other types of evidence, for example, evidence of correlation from comparative clinical studies . Evidential pluralists emphasize the complimentary nature of evidence of mechanisms and evidence of correlation (p351): Evidence of a linking mechanism helps show that the overall relationship between A and B is genuinely causal.…”
Section: Mechanistic Reasoning and Mechanistic Evidencementioning
confidence: 99%
“…It will also be argued that in this case study, the available evidence of underlying mechanisms did in fact play a role in providing evidence in favour of a medical intervention. This paper therefore adds a novel and recent case study to the literature in support of evidential pluralism in medicine …”
Some philosophers have argued that evidence of underlying mechanisms does not provide evidence for the effectiveness of a medical intervention. One such argument appeals to the unreliability of mechanistic reasoning. However, mechanistic reasoning is not the only way that evidence of mechanisms might provide evidence of effectiveness. A more reliable type of reasoning may be distinguished by appealing to recent work on evidential pluralism in the epistemology of medicine. A case study from virology provides an example of this so‐called reinforced reasoning in medicine. It is argued that in this case study, the available evidence of underlying mechanisms did in fact play a role in providing evidence in favour of a medical intervention. This paper therefore adds a novel and recent case study to the literature in support of evidential pluralism in medicine.
“…The overview provided in these chapters is introductory and relatively brief. Philosophers and philosophy‐inclined practitioners unfamiliar with recent work by the authors would likely benefit from reading key papers and recent work from the team alongside this overview . Part II provides six tools for assessing evidence of mechanisms.…”
Section: Overviewmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The key idea driving the book is that the assessment of causal claims in the biomedical sciences requires explicit consideration and evaluation of evidence of correlation and evidence of mechanisms . This idea, labelled the Russo‐Williamson Thesis , has been defended by authors of the book in other work …”
Section: The Approach Of the Bookmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Increasingly, there is also mechanistic evidence available regarding pharmacogenetic influences on ADME and the actions of the drug. The importance of additional mechanisms is recognized throughout the book and related work by the authors . Nevertheless, there are opportunities in the book to better recognize the importance of these additional mechanisms.…”
Evidence of mechanisms plays an important role in medical decision‐making, but this role is less well articulated than that of clinical trial evidence. A new book, Evaluating Evidence of Mechanisms in Medicine: Principles and Procedures, provides a framework and resources for explicitly evaluating evidence of mechanisms when assessing claims of efficacy and external validity. This review outlines the overall approach of the book, the contribution it makes to evidence evaluation in medicine and makes some suggestions for further work that will aid implementation of the framework into clinical decision‐making.
Statisticians and social and computer scientists tend to approach causality and causal inference with particular theories of causality in mind and defend tools that are supposed to support causal claims from the point of view of that theory. This entry explains why theoretical and methodological pluralism with respect to causality can benefit causal inference. To this aim, we first discuss various understandings of the concept of causality, and of mechanisms, and emphasize that none of them can be considered as intrinsically superior to the other. We then discuss typical design‐ and model‐based identification strategies of causal effects from within the potential outcome approach, and point to the crucial role of untestable assumptions for defending causal claims within experimental and observational methods. Finally, we explain how computational tools like agent‐based modeling can aid causal inference and argue that persuasive causal claims in fact require data and arguments produced by methods that are based on different assumptions and that incorporate different views of causality and mechanisms.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
