Theoretical Medicine and Bioethics

, Volume 37, Issue 3, pp 211–232 | Cite as

Inference to the best explanation and mechanisms in medicine

  • Stefan Dragulinescu


This article considers the prospects of inference to the best explanation (IBE) as a method of confirming causal claims vis-à-vis the medical evidence of mechanisms. I show that IBE is actually descriptive of how scientists reason when choosing among hypotheses, that it is amenable to the balance/weight distinction, a pivotal pair of concepts in the philosophy of evidence, and that it can do justice to interesting features of the interplay between mechanistic and population level assessments.


Inference to the best explanation Mechanisms Evidence Confirmation Causation Extrapolation Weight and balance 



This article was written as part of the project ‘Grading Evidence of Mechanisms in Physics and Biology’, funded by the Leverhulme Trust ( I am grateful for useful comments from Kristoffer Ahlstrom-Vij, Veli-Pekka Parkkinen, Jon Williamson, and two anonymous referees for this journal. The main and managing editors of this journal have been extraordinarily helpful with editing and content-wise suggestions for clarification. Finally, I would like to thank Mike Kelly for encouraging me to continue work when this article was at an early stage.


  1. 1.
    Clarke, B., D. Gillies, P. Illari, F. Russo, and J. Williamson. 2014. Mechanisms and the evidence hierarchy. Topoi 33(2): 339–360.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Earman, J. 1992. Bayes or bust? A critical examination of Bayesian confirmation theory. Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Clarke, B., B. Leuridan, and J. Williamson. 2014. Modelling mechanisms with causal cycles. Synthese 191(8): 1651–1681.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Lipton, P. 2004. Inference to the best explanation, 2nd ed. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Bird, A. 2010. Eliminative abduction—Examples from medicine. Studies in History and Philosophy of Science 4: 345–352.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Bird, A. 2011. The epistemological function of Hill’s criteria. Preventive Medicine 53: 85–96.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Feduzi, A. 2010. On Keynes’s conception of the weight of evidence. Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization 76(2): 338–351.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Russo, F., and J. Williamson. 2007. Interpreting causality in the health sciences. International Studies in the Philosophy of Science 21(2): 157–170.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Russo, F., and J. Williamson. 2011. Epistemic causality and evidence-based medicine. History and Philosophy of the Life Sciences 33(4): 563–582.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Dragulinescu, S. 2016. Mechanisms and difference making. Acta Analytica. doi: 10.1007/s12136-016-0292-1.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Harman, G. 1965. The inference to the best explanation. The Philosophical Review 74: 88–95.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Psillos, S. 2002. Simply the best: A case for abduction. In Computational logic: From logic programming into the future, ed. A.C. Kakas and F. Sadri, 605–625. Dordrecht: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Debru, A. 1996. Le corps respirant: La pensée physiologique chez Galien. Leiden: Brill.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Nutton, V. 2013. Ancient medicine. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Jouanna, J. 1992. Hippocrate. Paris: Fayard.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Psillos, S. 2007. The fine structure of inference to the best explanation. Philosophy and Phenomenological Research 74: 441–448.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Mill, J. S. 2002 [1843]. A system of logic. Honolulu: University Press of the Pacific.Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Lipton, P. 1993. Making a difference. Philosophica 51: 39–54.Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Bird, A. 2007. Inference to the only explanation. Philosophy and Phenomenological Research 74: 424–432.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Psillos, S. 2000. Abduction: Between conceptual richness and computational complexity. In Abduction and induction: Essays in their relation and integration, ed. A.C. Kakas and P. Flach, 59–74. Dordrecht: Kluwer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Cartwright, N. 1989. Nature’s capacities and their measurement. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Bird, A. 2005. Laws and essences. Ratio 18(4): 437–461.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Bird, A. 2007. Nature’s metaphysics: Laws and properties. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Broadbent, A. 2007. Reversing the counterfactual analysis of causation. International Journal of Philosophical Studies 15(2): 169–189.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Strevens, M. 2011. Depth: An account of scientific explanation. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Strevens, M. 2012. Replies to Weatherson, Hall, and Lange. Philosophy and Phenomenological Research 84: 447–505.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Salmon, W. 2001. Reflections of a bashful Bayesian: A reply to Peter Lipton. In Explanation, theoretical approaches and applications, ed. G. Hon and S. Rakover, 121–136. Dordrecht: Springer.Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Lipton, P. 2001. Is explanation a guide to inference? A reply to Wesley C. Salmon. In Explanation, theoretical approaches and applications, ed. G. Hon and S. Rakover, 93–120. Dordrecht: Springer.Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Illari, P., and J. Williamson. 2012. What is a mechanism: Thinking about mechanisms across the sciences. European Journal for Philosophy of Science 2: 119–135.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Niiniluoto, I. 1999. Defending abduction. Philosophy of Science 66: S436–S451.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Steinberg, D. 2007. The cholesterol wars. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Kritchevsky, D. 1995. Dietary protein, cholesterol and atherosclerosis: A review of the early history. Journal of Nutrition 125: 589S–593S.Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    Steinberg, D. 2005. An interpretive history of the cholesterol controversy, part III: Mechanistically defining the role of hyperlipidemia. Journal of Lipid Research 46: 2037–2051.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Brown, S., and J.L. Goldstein. 2009. History of discovery: The LDL receptor. Arteriosclerosis, Thrombosis, and Vascular Biology 29(4): 431–438.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Kelly, T. 2008. Evidence: Fundamental concepts and the phenomenal conception. Philosophy Compass 3(5): 933–955.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Kelly, T. 2014. Evidence. In The stanford encyclopedia of philosophy, ed. Edward N. Zalta. Accessed March 10, 2016.
  37. 37.
    Keynes, M. 1921. A treatise on probability. London: Macmillan & Co.Google Scholar
  38. 38.
    Joyce, J. 2005. How probabilities reflect evidence. Philosophical Perspectives 19(1): 153–178.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Cohen, J. 1986. Twelve questions about Keynes’s concept of weight. British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 37(3): 263–278.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    O’Donnell, R. 1992. Keynes’s weight of argument and Popper’s paradox of ideal evidence. Philosophy of Science 59(1): 44–52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Good, I. 1985. Weight of evidence: A brief survey. Accessed March 10, 2016.
  42. 42.
    Glass, D. 2012. Inference to the best explanation: Does it track truth? Synthese 185: 411–427.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Glass, D. 2007. Coherence measures and inference to the best explanation. Synthese 157: 275–296.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Douven, I., and S. Wenmackers. 2015. Inference to the best explanation versus Bayes’s rule in a social setting. British Journal for the Philosophy of Science. doi: 10.1093/bjps/axv025.Google Scholar
  45. 45.
    Douven, I., and J. Schupbach. 2015. Probabilistic alternatives to Bayesianism: The case of explanationism. Frontiers in Psychology 6: 459.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. 46.
    Douven, I., and J. Schupbach. 2015. The role of explanatory considerations in updating. Cognition 142: 299–311.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. 47.
    Furie, M., and R. Mitchell. 2012. Plaque attack: One hundred years of atherosclerosis. American Journal of Pathology 180(6): 2184–2187.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. 48.
    University of Kent. n.d. EBM Plus. Accessed May 5, 2016.
  49. 49.
    Worall, J. 2007. Evidence in medicine and evidence-based medicine. Philosophy Compass 2: 981–1022.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. 50.
    Ravnskov, U. 1992. Cholesterol lowering trials in coronary heart disease: Frequency of citation and outcome. BMJ 305(6844): 15–19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. 51.
    Worall, J. 2010. Evidence: Philosophy of science meets medicine. Journal of Evaluation in Clinical Practice 16(2): 356–362.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. 52.
    The International Network of Cholesterol Skeptics (THINCS). 2014. Members. Accessed May 5, 2016.
  53. 53.
    Uffe Ravnskov. 2006. The cholesterol myths: References. Accessed May 5, 2016.
  54. 54.
    Ravnskov, U. 2013. High cholesterol may protect against infections and atherosclerosis. QJM 96(12): 927–934.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. 55.
    Sutter, M. 1994. Blood cholesterol is not causally related to atherosclerosis. Cardiovascular Research 28: 575.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. 56.
    DuBroff, R., and M. de Lorgeril. 2015. Cholesterol confusion and statin controversy. World Journal of Cardiology 26(7): 404–409.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. 57.
    Chowdhury, R., S. Warnakula, S. Kunutsor, F. Crowe, H. Ward, and L. Johnson. 2014. Association of dietary, circulating, and supplement fatty acids with coronary risk: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Annals of Internal Medicine 160: 398–406.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. 58.
    Steinberg, D. 2005. An interpretive history of the cholesterol controversy, part II: The early evidence linking hypercholesterolemia to coronary disease in humans. Journal of Lipid Research 46: 179–190.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. 59.
    Witztum, J., and D. Steinberg. 2010. History of discovery oxidized low-density lipoprotein and atherosclerosis. Arteriosclerosis, Thrombosis, and Vascular Biology 30: 2311–2316.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Philosophy Department, School of European Culture and LanguagesUniversity of KentCanterburyUK

Personalised recommendations