ESCAMP, Zechenweg 6, D-79111 Freiburg, Germany; Louis Bolk Institute, Kosterijland 3-5, 3981 AJ Bunnik, The Netherlands; University of Applied Sciences Leiden, Zernikedreef 11, 2333 CK Leiden, The Netherlands.
Institute for Applied Epistemology and Medical Methodology at the Witten/Herdecke University, Zechenweg 6, D-79111 Freiburg, Germany.
Complement Ther Med. 2018 Oct;40:145-150. doi: 10.1016/j.ctim.2018.04.010. Epub 2018 Apr 27.
The objective was to evaluate the scientific status of anthroposophic medicine (AM) according to demarcation criteria proposed in contemporary philosophy of science.
Criteria for what is science were retrieved from eight publications in the philosophy of science, focusing either on science in medicine or on the demarcation between science and pseudoscience or non-science. Criteria were combined, redundancies were excluded, and the final set of criteria was ordered in a logical sequence. The analysis yielded 11 demarcation criteria (community, domain, problems, goals, axiomatic basis, conceptual basis, quality of concepts, methodology, deontic basis, research products, tradition).
Assessing the scientific status of AM according to the 11 criteria, all criteria were fulfilled by AM.
AM is grounded on the notion that specific non-atomistic holistic formative forces exist and can be empirically and rationally assessed. From a position claiming that such holistic forces cannot possibly exist or cannot be empirically and rationally assessed, the axiomatic and conceptual basis of AM can be contested. However, such an a priori rejection is problematic in the presence of empirical evidence supporting the validity of holistic concepts, as discussed in the paper. Future research should therefore focus on the tenability of the ontological reductionist position in science and on the further validation of AM non-atomistic holistic concepts, methods and practices.
In this analysis, using criteria from philosophy of science, AM fulfilled all 11 criteria for what is science.
根据当代科学哲学提出的划界标准，评估人智医学的科学地位。
从科学哲学的 8 篇出版物中检索出医学科学或科学与伪科学或非科学之间的划界标准的相关标准。对标准进行合并，排除冗余，并按逻辑顺序对最终标准集进行排序。分析得出 11 个划界标准（共同体、领域、问题、目标、公理基础、概念基础、概念质量、方法论、义务基础、研究成果、传统）。
根据这 11 个标准评估人智医学的科学地位，人智医学满足所有标准。
人智医学的基础是存在特定的非原子整体形成力的观点，并且可以通过经验和理性进行评估。从一种认为这种整体力量不可能存在或不能通过经验和理性进行评估的立场出发，可以对人智医学的公理和概念基础提出质疑。然而，正如本文所讨论的，在存在支持整体概念有效性的经验证据的情况下，这种先验的否定是有问题的。因此，未来的研究应集中于人智医学的本体还原论立场的可持性，以及对人智医学非原子整体概念、方法和实践的进一步验证。
在这项分析中，用人智医学的哲学标准来衡量，人智医学满足了科学的 11 个标准。
