Abstract
AbstractMotivated by a recent trend that advocates a reassessment of the aim of medical science and clinical practice, this paper investigates the epistemic aims of biomedical research. Drawing on contemporary discussions in epistemology and the philosophy of science, along with a recent study on scurvy, this paper (1) explores the concept of understanding as the aim of scientific inquiry and (2) establishes a framework that will guide the examination of its forms in biomedical research. Using the case of Tuberculosis (TB), (3) it is argued that grasping a mechanistic explanation is crucial for reaching a threshold of understanding at which we may speak of an objectual, biomedical understanding of TB.
Publisher
Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Reference79 articles.
1. Ban, T. A. (2006). The role of serendipity in drug discovery. Dialogues in Clinical Neuroscience, 8:3, 335–344.
2. Barnes, D. S. (2000). Historical perspectives on the etiology of tuberculosis. Microbes and Infection, 2(4), 431–440.
3. Baumberger, C., Beisbart, C., & Brun, G. (2017). What is understanding? An overview of recent debates in epistemology and philosophy of science. In Grimm, S., Bamberger, C, and Ammon, S. (Ed.). (2017). Explaining understanding: New perspectives from epistemology and philosophy of science London: Routledge. 1–34.
4. Bechtel, W., & Abrahamsen, A. (2005). Explanation: A mechanist alternative. Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part C: Studies in History and Philosophy of Biological and Biomedical Sciences, 36(2), 4214–4241.
5. Bengson, J. (2017). The unity of understanding. In S. Grimm (Ed.), Making sense of the world: New essays on the philosophy of understanding (pp. 14–53). Oxford University Press.