Skip to main content

The Weight of Evidence Account Defended

  • 117 Accesses

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.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

Buying options

Chapter
USD   29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • DOI: 10.1007/978-3-030-44270-5_6
  • Chapter length: 14 pages
  • Instant PDF download
  • Readable on all devices
  • Own it forever
  • Exclusive offer for individuals only
  • Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout
eBook
USD   44.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • ISBN: 978-3-030-44270-5
  • Instant PDF download
  • Readable on all devices
  • Own it forever
  • Exclusive offer for individuals only
  • Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout
Softcover Book
USD   59.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
Hardcover Book
USD   89.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)

References

  • Achinstein, Peter. 2001. The book of evidence. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Berry, Donald A. 2006. Bayesian clinical trials. Nature Reviews Drug Discovery 5: 27–36.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Brown, Byron Wm., Jr., and Myles Hollander. 1977. Statistics: A biomedical introduction. New York: Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Cox, Edward, Luciana Borio, and Robert Temple. 2014. Evaluating ebola therapies – The case for RCTs. New England Journal of Medicine 371: 2350–2351.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Earman, John. 1992. Bayes or bust? A critical examination of Bayesian confirmation theory. Cambridge: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Eddy, David M., and Charles H. Clanton. 1982. The art of diagnosis. Solving the clinicopathological exercise. New England Journal of Medicine 306: 1263–1268.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • Goodman, Nelson. 1983. Fact, fiction, and forecast. 4th ed. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • 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.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • ———. 1945b. Studies in the logic of confirmation (II). Mind 54: 97–121. Reprinted, with some changes, in Hempel 1965, 3–51.

    Google Scholar 

  • ———. 1965. Aspects of scientific explanation and other essays in the philosophy of science. New York: The Free Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Howson, Colin, and Peter Urbach. 2006. Scientific reasoning. The Bayesian approach. 3rd ed. Chicago: Open Court.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • Kassirer, Jerome P., John B. Wong, and Richard I. Kopelman. 2010. Learning clinical reasoning. 2nd ed. Baltimore: Lippincott Williams and Wilkins.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • Mayo, Deborah G. 1996. Error and the growth of experimental knowledge. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • ———. 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 

  • 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 

  • 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.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • NCCN (National Comprehensive Cancer Network). 2015. http://www.nccn.org. Accessed 5 Dec 2015.

  • Popper, Karl. 1992. The logic of scientific discovery. New York: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • 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 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

Copyright information

© 2020 Springer Nature Switzerland AG

About this chapter

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Pinkston, J.A. (2020). The Weight of Evidence Account Defended. In: Evidence and Hypothesis in Clinical Medical Science. Synthese Library, vol 426. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-44270-5_6

Download citation