Advertisement

The Weight of Evidence Account Defended

  • John Alexander Pinkston
Chapter
  • 17 Downloads
Part of the Synthese Library book series (SYLI, volume 426)

Abstract

In this chapter I defend the weight of evidence account. I argue that the other theories of evidence fail to adequately explain how evidence is gathered and used to confirm hypotheses in clinical medical science, and provide examples to show why they are unsuccessful. I argue that the weight of evidence account improves on the other theories by showing that it explains the many processes employed in clinical medical science, for example, by providing justification for more studies when the weight of evidence is low. The account also permits use of a variety of statistical methods and is not confined to frequentist or Bayesian approaches. It explains the case studies, and among other virtues it explains efforts to rank evidence, and justifies the use of treatment guidelines.

References

  1. Achinstein, Peter. 2001. The book of evidence. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Anderson, Kristin E., Thomas M. Mack, and Debra T. Silverman. 2006. Cancer of the pancreas. In Cancer epidemiology and prevention, ed. David Schottenfeld and Joseph F. Fraumeni Jr., 3rd ed., 721–762. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Berry, Donald A. 2006. Bayesian clinical trials. Nature Reviews Drug Discovery 5: 27–36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Brown, Byron Wm., Jr., and Myles Hollander. 1977. Statistics: A biomedical introduction. New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
  5. Casey, Jonathan D., Daniel H. Solomon, Thomas A. Gaziano, Amy Leigh Miller, and Joseph Loscalzo. 2013. A patient with migrating polyarthralgias. New England Journal of Medicine 369: 75–80.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Cox, Edward, Luciana Borio, and Robert Temple. 2014. Evaluating ebola therapies – The case for RCTs. New England Journal of Medicine 371: 2350–2351.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Doll, Richard, Richard Peto, Jillian Boreham, and Isabelle Sutherland. 2004. Mortality in relation to smoking: 50 years’ observations on male British doctors. British Medical Journal 328: 1519–1528.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Earman, John. 1992. Bayes or bust? A critical examination of Bayesian confirmation theory. Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  9. Eddy, David M., and Charles H. Clanton. 1982. The art of diagnosis. Solving the clinicopathological exercise. New England Journal of Medicine 306: 1263–1268.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Glymour, Clark. 2010. Explanation and truth. In Error and inference: Recent exchanges on experimental reasoning, reliability, and the objectivity and rationality of science, ed. Deborah G. Mayo and Aris Spanos, 331–350. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  11. Goodman, Nelson. 1983. Fact, fiction, and forecast. 4th ed. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  12. Guyatt, Gordon, David Sackett, D. Wayne Taylor, John Chong, Robin Roberts, and Stewart Pugsley. 1986. Determining optimal therapy – Randomized trials in individual patients. New England Journal of Medicine 314: 889–892.Google Scholar
  13. Guyatt, Gordon H., Andrew D. Oxman, Gunn E. Vist, Regina Kunz, Yngve Falck-Ytter, and Holger J. Schünemann. 2008. GRADE: What is “quality of evidence” and why is it important to clinicians? British Medical Journal 336: 995–998.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Hempel, Carl G. 1945a. Studies in the logic of confirmation (I). Mind 54: 1–26. Reprinted, with some changes, in Hempel 1965, 3–51.Google Scholar
  15. ———. 1945b. Studies in the logic of confirmation (II). Mind 54: 97–121. Reprinted, with some changes, in Hempel 1965, 3–51.Google Scholar
  16. ———. 1965. Aspects of scientific explanation and other essays in the philosophy of science. New York: The Free Press.Google Scholar
  17. Herbst, Arthur L., Howard Ulfelder, and David Poskanzer. 1971. Adenocarcinoma of the vagina. Association of maternal stilbestrol therapy with tumor appearance in young women. New England Journal of Medicine 284: 878–881.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Howson, Colin, and Peter Urbach. 2006. Scientific reasoning. The Bayesian approach. 3rd ed. Chicago: Open Court.Google Scholar
  19. International Agency for Research on Cancer. 2004. Tobacco smoke and involuntary smoking. IARC monographs on the evaluation of carcinogenic risks to humans. Vol. 83. IARC: Lyon.Google Scholar
  20. Kassirer, Jerome P., John B. Wong, and Richard I. Kopelman. 2010. Learning clinical reasoning. 2nd ed. Baltimore: Lippincott Williams and Wilkins.Google Scholar
  21. Kelsey, Jennifer L., W. Douglas Thompson, and Alfred S. Evans. 1986. Methods in observational epidemiology. Volume 10 of Monographs in epidemiology and biostatisics, general ed. Abraham M. Lilienfeld. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  22. Mayo, Deborah G. 1996. Error and the growth of experimental knowledge. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. ———. 2005. Evidence as passing severe tests: Highly probable versus highly probed hypotheses. In Scientific evidence. Philosophical theories and applications, ed. Peter Achinstein, 95–127. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.Google Scholar
  24. Mueller, Nancy E. 1996. Hodgkin’s disease. In Cancer epidemiology and prevention, ed. David Schottenfeld and Joseph F. Fraumeni Jr., 2nd ed., 893–919. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  25. Mueller, Nancy, G. Marie Swanson, Chung-cheng Hsieh, and Philip Cole. 1987. Tonsillectomy and Hodgkin’s disease: Results from companion population-based studies. Journal of the National Cancer Institute 78: 1–5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. NCCN (National Comprehensive Cancer Network). 2015. http://www.nccn.org. Accessed 5 Dec 2015.
  27. Popper, Karl. 1992. The logic of scientific discovery. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  28. Slone, Dennis, Samuel Shapiro, Lynn Rosenberg, David W. Kaufman, Stuart C. Hartz, Allen C. Rossi, Paul D. Stolley, and Olli S. Miettinen. 1978. Relation of cigarette smoking to myocardial infarction in young women. New England Journal of Medicine 298: 1273–1276.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Thomas, Patrick R.M., and Anne S. Lindblad. 1988. Adjuvant postoperative radiotherapy and chemotherapy in rectal carcinoma: A review of the gastrointestinal tumor study group experience. Radiotherapy and Oncology 13: 245–252.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Ueshima, Hirotsugu, Takashi Shimamoto, Minoru Iida, Masamitsu Konishi, Masato Tanigaki, Mitsunori Doi, Katsuhiko Tsujioka, et al. 1984. Alcohol intake and hypertension among urban and rural Japanese populations. Journal of Chronic Diseases 37: 585–592.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Yerushalmy, J., J.T. Harkness, J.H. Cope, and B.R. Kennedy. 1950. The role of dual reading in mass radiography. The American Review of Tuberculosis 61: 443–464.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2020

Authors and Affiliations

  • John Alexander Pinkston
    • 1
  1. 1.Birmingham Radiological GroupBirminghamUSA

Personalised recommendations