Some
provocative arguments about epidemiology by Alex Broadbent, a philosopher of
epidemiology in Johannesburg (SA), on his epidemiology blog.
“(1) It
is hard to use results which one reasonably suspects might soon be found incorrect.”
“(2) Often,
epidemiological results are such that a prospective user reasonably suspects
that they will soon be found incorrect.”
“(3)
Therefore, often, it is hard to use epidemiological results.”
“I think that (1) does not need supporting: it is
obviously true (or obviously enough for these purposes). The weight is on (2),
and my argument for (2) is that from the outside, it is simply too hard to tell
whether a given issue – for example, the effect of HRT on heart disease, or the
effect of acetaminophen (paracetamol) on asthma – is still part of an ongoing
debate, or can reasonably be regarded as settled. The problem infects even
results that epidemiologists would widely regard as settled: the credibility of
the evidence on the effect of smoking on lung cancer is not helped by reversals
over HRT, for example, because from the outside, it is not unreasonable to
wonder what the relevant difference is between the pronouncements on HRT and
the pronouncements on lung cancer and smoking. There is a difference: my point is that epidemiology lacks a clear
framework for saying what it is.”
ttp://philosepi.wordpress.com/author/philosepi/page/2/
Do these
arguments affect the epidemiological results of mastitis investigations?
There were
no comments on Broadbent’s blog, and I do not think mine will raise comments
either, but feel free if you want.
No comments:
Post a Comment