Epidemiologists generally address the topic of bias by describing categories of kinds of bias and offering suggestions on how to minimize or eliminate each. A simple word search on PubMed gives about 181 000 hits for bias and just 22 000 hits for truth. 1 Whilst philosophers are keen to understand the nature of truths and what makes them true, scholars of evidence‐based health care (EHBC) however have tended to more interested in bias. Truth is and has been one of the most central and extensively debated topics in philosophy. ![]() We contend that EBHC could usefully incorporate a more pluralist understanding of truth and bias and provide an example how this would work out in a clinical scenario. To the extent that the goal of EBHC is to support inferencing in the clinical encounter, then the ideal limit as the sole concept of truth appears to be conceptually insufficient. Most importantly, it casts doubt on the ideal limit theory as it applies to the single case scenario of the clinical encounter, the cornerstone of EBHC. The duality that Stengers' view invokes draws attention to and challenges the assumptions underlying the ideal limit theory of truth in several ways. Bias appears to have both an unproductive aspect and a productive aspect as argued by Stengers and others: Facts are not absolute but result from an interest, or interesse: a bias towards a certain line of questioning that cannot be eliminated. It means something different if one takes a critical view of the knowledge‐power complex in research trials. We draw on Belgian philosopher Isabelle Stengers' work to demonstrate that bias means one thing if one assumes a world of hard facts “out there,” waiting to be collected. ![]() In this paper, we give a brief overview of several important theories of truth, notably the ideal limit theorem (which assumes an ultimate and absolute truth towards which scientific inquiry progresses), the dominant way truth is conceptualized in the discourse and practice of EBHC. ![]() In modern philosophy, the concept of truth has been problematized from different angles, yet in evidence‐based health care (EBHC), it continues to operate hidden and almost undisputed through the linked concept of “bias.” To prevent unwarranted relativism and make better inferences in clinical practice, clinicians may benefit from a closer analysis of existing assumptions about truth, validity, and reality.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |