JOURNAL OF DIALECTICS OF NATURE
A Comprehensive, Academic Journal of the Philosophy, History, Sociology and Cultural Studies of Science and Technology
Author Information
FANG Wei
Information
<p>Department of Philosophy</p><p>Tongji University</p>
Research Articles
-
Non-Reductive Explanation in Biology: Context Arguments Abstract: Biological practice over the last several decades has shown that in many cases we cannot properly explain a higher-level phenomenon of interest only in terms of phenomena or mechanisms provided by lowerlevel explanations; to properly explain the higher-level phenomenon, information provided by the higher-level is also indispensable. One typical case is the context dependence of biological phenomena, namely, the occurrence of a higher-level phenomenon depends on its relevant environmental factors (e.g. cellular environments) which cannot simply be reduced to the lower-level (e.g. molecules) . On the other hand, the occurrence of the higher-level phenomenon can sometimes be independent of its lower-level underpinnings, since a change to the lower-level underpinnings does not necessarily result in corresponding changes in the higher-level. Facts based on these two sides constitute a ground for rejecting explanatory reductionism. This essay, by reference to examples drawn from biological practice, will discuss how contextual facts pose a challenge to explanatory reductionism.Issue:Volume 41, lssue 1, January 2019Page: 26-32
-
How to Be Evidence: Mechanisms as Medical Causal Evidence Abstract: Establishing causal relationships in clinical medical research is not only a highly challenging scientific practice problem but also a core topic of concern in contemporary philosophy of medicine. The debate on this topic mainly focuses on what kind of evidence is sufficient to support the establishment of causal relationships. One side argues that association evidence obtained from randomized controlled trials is sufficient to establish causal relationships; the other side argues that association evidence alone (obtained from randomized controlled trials) is insufficient, as mechanistic evidence must also be provided as a supplement. The former believes that association evidence is sufficient, while the latter believes that both association and mechanistic evidence is necessary but not sufficient. This article, by demonstrating the untenability of the above two viewpoints, proposes a third approach: that the mechanism is both sufficient and necessary for establishing causal relationships. Key Words: Causation; Clinical medicine; Mechanism; Evidence; Randomized controlled trialsIssue:Volume 48, lssue 6, June 2026Page: 28-35
JOURNAL OF DIALECTICS OF NATURE
- Contact Us
- Address: No.19A Yuquan Road, Beijing, 100049, China
- Phone: +86-10-88256007
- Email:jdn@ucas.ac.cn
Follow Us
© 2014 Copyright of the University of Chinese Academy of Sciences
© 2014 Copyright of the University of Chinese Academy of Sciences
