Bennett D
Department of Geography, Carleton University, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada.
Soc Sci Med. 1991;33(4):339-46. doi: 10.1016/0277-9536(91)90314-3.
This paper discusses some basic questions about evidence, proof, argument, and explanation in medical geography. The main objective is an evaluation of the underlying epistemological robustness of the field and the cogency of its claims to possess knowledge. It is argued that the constraints imposed by inductive and deductive reasoning prevent the formulation of causal explanations of a kind likely to satisfy those potential external consumers of medical geography's output who unreflectively apply a criterion of certainty. It is suggested that all forms of empirically relevant explanation will fall short of this standard, which must, therefore be relaxed to a criterion of adequacy as developed by the American Pragmatists, especially William James.
本文探讨了医学地理学中有关证据、证明、论证和解释的一些基本问题。主要目的是评估该领域潜在的认识论稳健性及其声称拥有知识的说服力。有人认为，归纳推理和演绎推理所施加的限制阻碍了形成那种可能令医学地理学成果的潜在外部受众满意的因果解释，这些受众不加思考地应用确定性标准。有人提出，所有形式的与经验相关的解释都将达不到这一标准，因此必须放宽到美国实用主义者，尤其是威廉·詹姆斯所提出的充分性标准。
