Next week, I am presenting my paper ’Scientific disagreement and evidential pluralism: Lessons from the studies on hypercholesterolemia’ (co-authored by Veli-Pekka Parkkinen and Federica Russo) at ECAP9 in Munich. Here is my abstract:
Author: Charlie Norell
In any introductory course in philosophy of science we ask the question whether philosophy of science should be normative or descriptive. This question has a history of its own, which also influenced what has become the ‘mainstream’ in philosophy of science, and that marked a difference between philosophy of science on the one hand and the social studies of science on the other hand.
Conference: Grading Evidence of Mechanisms
Date: 4-5 September
Location: University of Kent
Have you recently needed to recite the dates of King Tut’s rule? Nope. Not necessary. Finding information at the point of care? Knowing how healthcare systems work? Necessary. We learn so many things that we never need. Evidence based medicine (EBM) is so important and our time with students so limited, that we must teach the most clinically relevant EBM topics. Take (or leave, really) the pyramid of evidence for example.
A council in England was recently reprimanded for running an advertising campaign against begging. In a series of posters displayed throughout Nottingham, the city council claimed that “beggars aren’t what they seem”, that begging “funds the misuse of drugs” and that money given to beggars would go “down the drain” or “up in smoke”.