Faculty of Philosophy, Università Vita-Salute San Raffaele, Milan, Italy.
Hist Philos Life Sci. 2021 Oct 14;43(4):110. doi: 10.1007/s40656-021-00456-w.
Science progresses through debate and disagreement, and scientific controversies play a crucial role in the growth of scientific knowledge. However, not all controversies and disagreements are progressive in science. Sometimes, controversies can be pseudoscientific; in fact, bogus controversies, and what seem like genuine scientific disagreements, can be a distortion of science set up by non-scientific actors (e.g., interest groups). Bogus controversies are detrimental to science because they can hinder scientific progress and eventually bias science-based decisions. The first goal of this paper is to elucidate the distinction between bogus and genuine scientific controversies and provide a qualitative methodology, based on the literature on expertise, for distinguishing between the two. We will illustrate six epistemic criteria for distinguishing bogus from genuine scientific debates in science and medicine. This heuristic strategy applies directly to scientific reports, and it relies mostly on the social structure of science. We will then apply the above criteria to a case study: the controversy over statins, which are widely prescribed drugs for reducing the level of cholesterol and preventing cardiovascular disease.
科学是通过辩论和分歧来发展的，科学争议在科学知识的增长中起着至关重要的作用。然而，并非所有的争议和分歧在科学上都是进步的。有时，争议可能是伪科学的；事实上，虚假的争议，以及看似真正的科学分歧，可能是由非科学行为者（如利益集团）对科学的扭曲。虚假的争议对科学是有害的，因为它们可能阻碍科学进步，并最终影响基于科学的决策。本文的首要目标是阐明虚假和真正的科学争议之间的区别，并提供一种基于专业知识文献的定性方法，用于区分两者。我们将阐述区分科学和医学中虚假和真正的科学争论的六个认识论标准。这种启发式策略直接适用于科学报告，并且主要依赖于科学的社会结构。然后，我们将把上述标准应用于一个案例研究：他汀类药物的争议，他汀类药物是广泛用于降低胆固醇水平和预防心血管疾病的处方药物。
