认识上的谦卑:积累智慧还是放弃标准?

IF 2.6 0 PHILOSOPHY
G. Waterman
{"title":"认识上的谦卑:积累智慧还是放弃标准?","authors":"G. Waterman","doi":"10.1353/ppp.2022.0017","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Abstract:A back injury forces the author, a retired psychiatrist, to confront the realities of aging. More than that, though, the experience of patienthood engenders an examination of long and deeply considered convictions regarding scientific medicine and its alternatives. One particular \"complementary and alternative medicine\" modality is employed as an exemplar. The reported usefulness of that therapy for some patients with chronic pain—a condition that is often poorly responsive to conventional methods—is juxtaposed to the implausible mechanism of action claimed by its practitioners, producing an enigma for which the standard explanation of \"non-specific\" (placebo) effects might be accurate but incomplete. The complexities involved—not least those of human heterogeneity and of the current limitations of modern medicine—point to the imperative of epistemic humility, raising the question of whether the pluralism it entails is compatible with the putative protections afforded by adherence to scientific standards in clinical care.","PeriodicalId":45397,"journal":{"name":"Philosophy Psychiatry & Psychology","volume":"5 1","pages":"101 - 106"},"PeriodicalIF":2.6000,"publicationDate":"2022-06-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Epistemic Humility: Accruing Wisdom or Forsaking Standards?\",\"authors\":\"G. Waterman\",\"doi\":\"10.1353/ppp.2022.0017\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Abstract:A back injury forces the author, a retired psychiatrist, to confront the realities of aging. More than that, though, the experience of patienthood engenders an examination of long and deeply considered convictions regarding scientific medicine and its alternatives. One particular \\\"complementary and alternative medicine\\\" modality is employed as an exemplar. The reported usefulness of that therapy for some patients with chronic pain—a condition that is often poorly responsive to conventional methods—is juxtaposed to the implausible mechanism of action claimed by its practitioners, producing an enigma for which the standard explanation of \\\"non-specific\\\" (placebo) effects might be accurate but incomplete. The complexities involved—not least those of human heterogeneity and of the current limitations of modern medicine—point to the imperative of epistemic humility, raising the question of whether the pluralism it entails is compatible with the putative protections afforded by adherence to scientific standards in clinical care.\",\"PeriodicalId\":45397,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Philosophy Psychiatry & Psychology\",\"volume\":\"5 1\",\"pages\":\"101 - 106\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.6000,\"publicationDate\":\"2022-06-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Philosophy Psychiatry & Psychology\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1353/ppp.2022.0017\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"0\",\"JCRName\":\"PHILOSOPHY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Philosophy Psychiatry & Psychology","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1353/ppp.2022.0017","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"0","JCRName":"PHILOSOPHY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

摘要:背部受伤迫使作者,一名退休精神病学家,面对衰老的现实。更重要的是,病人的经历引发了对科学医学及其替代品的长期和深思熟虑的信念的检查。一种特殊的“补充和替代医学”模式被用作范例。据报道,这种疗法对一些慢性疼痛患者有用——这种疾病通常对传统方法反应不佳——与从业者声称的难以置信的作用机制并在一起,产生了一个谜,“非特异性”(安慰剂)效应的标准解释可能是准确的,但不完整。涉及到的复杂性——不仅仅是人类的异质性和现代医学的局限性——指出了认识谦卑的必要性,提出了一个问题,即它所带来的多元化是否与临床护理中坚持科学标准所提供的假定保护相兼容。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Epistemic Humility: Accruing Wisdom or Forsaking Standards?
Abstract:A back injury forces the author, a retired psychiatrist, to confront the realities of aging. More than that, though, the experience of patienthood engenders an examination of long and deeply considered convictions regarding scientific medicine and its alternatives. One particular "complementary and alternative medicine" modality is employed as an exemplar. The reported usefulness of that therapy for some patients with chronic pain—a condition that is often poorly responsive to conventional methods—is juxtaposed to the implausible mechanism of action claimed by its practitioners, producing an enigma for which the standard explanation of "non-specific" (placebo) effects might be accurate but incomplete. The complexities involved—not least those of human heterogeneity and of the current limitations of modern medicine—point to the imperative of epistemic humility, raising the question of whether the pluralism it entails is compatible with the putative protections afforded by adherence to scientific standards in clinical care.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
3.60
自引率
4.30%
发文量
40
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信