Scientific Knowledge
Lead Research Organisation:
University of Bristol
Department Name: School of Arts
Abstract
The phrase 'scientific knowledge' is in common use, for example when we talk of the 'growth of scientific knowledge'. Yet knowledge itself has been largely ignored in the epistemology of science, which has developed independently from general epistemology. This project aims to bring philosophy of science and general philosophy into a closer relationship. In particular it considers the epistemology of science from a standpoint that places central emphasis on the idea of scientific knowledge. This project develops this epistemology of science in detail. It then applies this epistemology to the particular case of the generation of medical knowledge through clinical trials and other kinds of clinical study. It will thereby have consequences for our understanding of Evidence-Based Medicine.
Planned Impact
This project has a central philosophical component and a smaller applied component. The central component is philosophical research on the nature of scientific knowledge. The secondary component concerns the application of this general account to the case of medical knowledge. While the central component will be of interest mainly to academic philosophers and also to philosophically-minded scientists, the secondary component will be of interest to epidemiologists and other medical professionals.
The Impact Plan articulates a case for the significance of my epistemology of science for medicine, and provides evidence of the interest that medical professionals would have in this approach. In particular, the debates over the nature and significance of Evidence-Based Medicine (EBM) can be better understood thanks to my work (which has in part been developed with medical cases in mind). EBM is both highly influential and much contested. The provision of an epistemological framework for understanding EBM, which has been lacking hitherto, promises to have high non-academic impact. I aim to exploit this opportunity both through articles in general medical journals and through collaboration with the Centre for Evidence-Based Medicine in Oxford.
People |
ORCID iD |
| Alexander Bird (Principal Investigator) |
Publications
Alexander Bird
(2016)
The Oxford Handbook of Philosophy of Science
Bird A
(2016)
Evidence and Inference
in Philosophy and Phenomenological Research
Bird A
(2014)
Essays in Collective Epistemology
Bird A
(2012)
The Structure of Scientific Revolutions and its Significance: An Essay Review of the Fiftieth Anniversary Edition
in The British Journal for the Philosophy of Science
Bird A
(2017)
Systematicity, knowledge, and bias. How systematicity made clinical medicine a science
in Synthese
Bird A
(2015)
Kuhn's Structure of Scientific Revolutions - 50 Years On
Bird A
(2011)
The epistemological function of Hill's criteria.
in Preventive medicine
Bird A J
(2011)
Continuum Companion to the Philosophy of Science
Bird A J
(2012)
The Structure of Scientific Revolutions Revisited
Bird A J
(2011)
What Can Philosophy Tell Us About Evidence-Based Medicine?
in International Journal of Person-Centered Medicine
| Description | The project aimed to show how recent developments in epistemology have important consequences for the philosophy of science and beyond (in particular medicine). These connections have not hitherto been made, reflecting the distance between the epistemology and philosophy of science silos. The key findings for philosophy of science are: • scientific evidence should be understood as knowledge; • scientific evidence is not therefore limited to observation (and in particular not to perception); • inference to the best explanation should be understood as an approximation to inference to the only explanation-to gain knowledge we should (like Sherlock Holmes) aim to eliminate the impossible and believe what remains; • our standards of epistemic value are gained from our experiences of successful theories, rather as Kuhn describes the operation of paradigms, except that this can be understood in realist terms; we should understand the operation of paradigms in psychological/cognitive terms; • we can see scientific communities as epistemic agents-we should understand collective knowledge in Durkheimian terms: scientific communities are held together by organic solidarity, maintained by the division of epistemic labour. The project also has findings relevant to medicine, epidemiology in particular. We can use the above findings to understand certain debates in epidemiological inference (e.g. whether a certain environmental state causes a medical condition) This gives us a framework for understanding Hill's criteria of causal inference-widely used but without a solid epistemological foundation hitherto. It also provides a framework for understanding the wider (and hotly disputed) debate over Evidence-Based Medicine. |
| Exploitation Route | The importance of this research to medicine and methodological debates in medicine (e.g. the debate over Evidence-Based Medicine or the disputes between economists and epidemiologists about causal inference from data) is highly significant. I am working with medical researchers on these topics as a consequence. |
| Sectors | Healthcare |
| URL | http://research-information.bristol.ac.uk/en/persons/alexander-j-bird(9c69fc3f-2f69-4ad1-bcc1-ebb1c0477407)/publications.html |
| Description | The impacts have been indirect and many remain in the future. My work has been cited by those concerned with methodological issues relating to evidence-based medicine. As such the work will contribute to better decision making, e.g. in epidemiology. In the autumn of 2015 I worked with medics in Oxford on these issues and we hope for more substantive impacts in the years to come. |
| First Year Of Impact | 2015 |
| Sector | Healthcare |
| Impact Types | Policy & public services |
| Description | Collaboration with Oxford Department of Primary Health Care Sciences |
| Organisation | University of Oxford |
| Department | Nuffield Department of Primary Care Health Sciences |
| Country | United Kingdom |
| Sector | Academic/University |
| PI Contribution | We collaborated on a series of research seminars in the philosophy of medicine that aimed to get medical researchers and practitioners engaged with (and become responsive to) contributions from philosophy of science and medicine. At the same time, the philosophers involved aimed to learn more about the kinds of problem that medics face in assessing evidence and in making decisions. |
| Collaborator Contribution | My collaborator was Dr Jeremy Howick, from Oxford's Department of Primary Health Care Sciences. He helped organise the seminars and generate participation from a wide range of medics. He led half the seminars. |
| Impact | Too soon, none yet |
| Start Year | 2015 |