Loading…

Modeling the invention of a new inference rule: The case of ‘Randomized Clinical Trial’ as an argument scheme for medical science

A background assumption of this paper is that the repertoire of inference schemes available to humanity is not fixed, but subject to change as new schemes are invented or refined and as old ones are obsolesced or abandoned. This is particularly visible in areas like health and environmental sciences...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published in:Argument & computation 2018-07, Vol.9 (2), p.77-89
Main Authors: Schneider, Jodi, Jackson, Sally
Format: Article
Language:English
Citations: Items that this one cites
Online Access:Get full text
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
cited_by
cites cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c324t-9d4f7b95c261a1667271dccb9181a09f9e80ac9a86afa1732eab2241738366473
container_end_page 89
container_issue 2
container_start_page 77
container_title Argument & computation
container_volume 9
creator Schneider, Jodi
Jackson, Sally
description A background assumption of this paper is that the repertoire of inference schemes available to humanity is not fixed, but subject to change as new schemes are invented or refined and as old ones are obsolesced or abandoned. This is particularly visible in areas like health and environmental sciences, where enormous societal investment has been made in finding ways to reach more dependable conclusions. Computational modeling of argumentation, at least for the discourse in expert fields, will require the possibility of modeling change in a stock of schemes that may be applied to generate conclusions from data. We examine Randomized Clinical Trial, an inference scheme established within medical science in the mid-20th Century, and show that its successful defense by means of practical reasoning allowed for its black-boxing as an inference scheme that generates (and warrants belief in) conclusions about the effects of medical treatments. Modeling the use of a scheme is well-understood; here we focus on modeling how the scheme comes to be established so that it is available for use.
doi_str_mv 10.3233/AAC-180036
format article
fullrecord <record><control><sourceid>sage_doaj_</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_doaj_primary_oai_doaj_org_article_0fd6d14c3a79480893e69c89bcc86d34</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><sage_id>10.3233_AAC-180036</sage_id><doaj_id>oai_doaj_org_article_0fd6d14c3a79480893e69c89bcc86d34</doaj_id><sourcerecordid>10.3233_AAC-180036</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c324t-9d4f7b95c261a1667271dccb9181a09f9e80ac9a86afa1732eab2241738366473</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNptkc9qVDEUhy-iYKnd-ATZCcK1-Wdu4m4YWltoKci4DmeSk2mGexNJZix11Z2voLs-Sx-lT2KmU7rybM7hx8cHh1_XvWf0k-BCHM9m855pSoV61R0wI1XP2SBfv9xKve2Oal3TNoJrZcxB9_syexxjWpHNNZKYfmLaxJxIDgRIwpsWBSyYHJKyHfELWTTMQcUd8Xj35xskn6f4Cz2ZN010MJJFiTA-3v0lUAkkAmW1nZqWVHeNE5KQy8P9hH7HPtxXF3f2d92bAGPFo-d92H0_PVnMz_qLq6_n89lF7wSXm954GYal-ey4YtAeGvjAvHNLwzQDaoJBTcEZ0AoCsEFwhCXnsl1aKCUHcdid770-w9r-KHGCcmszRPsU5LKyUDbRjWhp8Moz6QQMRmqqjUBlnDZL57TyQjbXx73LlVxrwfDiY9TuGrGtEbtvpMEf9nCFFdp13pbU_vwf-Q8u6400</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Open Website</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype></control><display><type>article</type><title>Modeling the invention of a new inference rule: The case of ‘Randomized Clinical Trial’ as an argument scheme for medical science</title><source>DOAJ Directory of Open Access Journals</source><creator>Schneider, Jodi ; Jackson, Sally</creator><creatorcontrib>Schneider, Jodi ; Jackson, Sally</creatorcontrib><description>A background assumption of this paper is that the repertoire of inference schemes available to humanity is not fixed, but subject to change as new schemes are invented or refined and as old ones are obsolesced or abandoned. This is particularly visible in areas like health and environmental sciences, where enormous societal investment has been made in finding ways to reach more dependable conclusions. Computational modeling of argumentation, at least for the discourse in expert fields, will require the possibility of modeling change in a stock of schemes that may be applied to generate conclusions from data. We examine Randomized Clinical Trial, an inference scheme established within medical science in the mid-20th Century, and show that its successful defense by means of practical reasoning allowed for its black-boxing as an inference scheme that generates (and warrants belief in) conclusions about the effects of medical treatments. Modeling the use of a scheme is well-understood; here we focus on modeling how the scheme comes to be established so that it is available for use.</description><identifier>ISSN: 1946-2166</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1946-2174</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.3233/AAC-180036</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>London, England: SAGE Publications</publisher><ispartof>Argument &amp; computation, 2018-07, Vol.9 (2), p.77-89</ispartof><rights>2018 – IOS Press and the authors.</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><oa>free_for_read</oa><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c324t-9d4f7b95c261a1667271dccb9181a09f9e80ac9a86afa1732eab2241738366473</cites></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><link.rule.ids>314,776,780,860,2096,27901,27902</link.rule.ids></links><search><creatorcontrib>Schneider, Jodi</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Jackson, Sally</creatorcontrib><title>Modeling the invention of a new inference rule: The case of ‘Randomized Clinical Trial’ as an argument scheme for medical science</title><title>Argument &amp; computation</title><description>A background assumption of this paper is that the repertoire of inference schemes available to humanity is not fixed, but subject to change as new schemes are invented or refined and as old ones are obsolesced or abandoned. This is particularly visible in areas like health and environmental sciences, where enormous societal investment has been made in finding ways to reach more dependable conclusions. Computational modeling of argumentation, at least for the discourse in expert fields, will require the possibility of modeling change in a stock of schemes that may be applied to generate conclusions from data. We examine Randomized Clinical Trial, an inference scheme established within medical science in the mid-20th Century, and show that its successful defense by means of practical reasoning allowed for its black-boxing as an inference scheme that generates (and warrants belief in) conclusions about the effects of medical treatments. Modeling the use of a scheme is well-understood; here we focus on modeling how the scheme comes to be established so that it is available for use.</description><issn>1946-2166</issn><issn>1946-2174</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2018</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>AFRWT</sourceid><sourceid>DOA</sourceid><recordid>eNptkc9qVDEUhy-iYKnd-ATZCcK1-Wdu4m4YWltoKci4DmeSk2mGexNJZix11Z2voLs-Sx-lT2KmU7rybM7hx8cHh1_XvWf0k-BCHM9m855pSoV61R0wI1XP2SBfv9xKve2Oal3TNoJrZcxB9_syexxjWpHNNZKYfmLaxJxIDgRIwpsWBSyYHJKyHfELWTTMQcUd8Xj35xskn6f4Cz2ZN010MJJFiTA-3v0lUAkkAmW1nZqWVHeNE5KQy8P9hH7HPtxXF3f2d92bAGPFo-d92H0_PVnMz_qLq6_n89lF7wSXm954GYal-ey4YtAeGvjAvHNLwzQDaoJBTcEZ0AoCsEFwhCXnsl1aKCUHcdid770-w9r-KHGCcmszRPsU5LKyUDbRjWhp8Moz6QQMRmqqjUBlnDZL57TyQjbXx73LlVxrwfDiY9TuGrGtEbtvpMEf9nCFFdp13pbU_vwf-Q8u6400</recordid><startdate>20180716</startdate><enddate>20180716</enddate><creator>Schneider, Jodi</creator><creator>Jackson, Sally</creator><general>SAGE Publications</general><general>IOS Press</general><scope>AFRWT</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>DOA</scope></search><sort><creationdate>20180716</creationdate><title>Modeling the invention of a new inference rule: The case of ‘Randomized Clinical Trial’ as an argument scheme for medical science</title><author>Schneider, Jodi ; Jackson, Sally</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c324t-9d4f7b95c261a1667271dccb9181a09f9e80ac9a86afa1732eab2241738366473</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2018</creationdate><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Schneider, Jodi</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Jackson, Sally</creatorcontrib><collection>SAGE Journals Open Access</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>DOAJ Directory of Open Access Journals</collection><jtitle>Argument &amp; computation</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Schneider, Jodi</au><au>Jackson, Sally</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Modeling the invention of a new inference rule: The case of ‘Randomized Clinical Trial’ as an argument scheme for medical science</atitle><jtitle>Argument &amp; computation</jtitle><date>2018-07-16</date><risdate>2018</risdate><volume>9</volume><issue>2</issue><spage>77</spage><epage>89</epage><pages>77-89</pages><issn>1946-2166</issn><eissn>1946-2174</eissn><abstract>A background assumption of this paper is that the repertoire of inference schemes available to humanity is not fixed, but subject to change as new schemes are invented or refined and as old ones are obsolesced or abandoned. This is particularly visible in areas like health and environmental sciences, where enormous societal investment has been made in finding ways to reach more dependable conclusions. Computational modeling of argumentation, at least for the discourse in expert fields, will require the possibility of modeling change in a stock of schemes that may be applied to generate conclusions from data. We examine Randomized Clinical Trial, an inference scheme established within medical science in the mid-20th Century, and show that its successful defense by means of practical reasoning allowed for its black-boxing as an inference scheme that generates (and warrants belief in) conclusions about the effects of medical treatments. Modeling the use of a scheme is well-understood; here we focus on modeling how the scheme comes to be established so that it is available for use.</abstract><cop>London, England</cop><pub>SAGE Publications</pub><doi>10.3233/AAC-180036</doi><tpages>13</tpages><oa>free_for_read</oa></addata></record>
fulltext fulltext
identifier ISSN: 1946-2166
ispartof Argument & computation, 2018-07, Vol.9 (2), p.77-89
issn 1946-2166
1946-2174
language eng
recordid cdi_doaj_primary_oai_doaj_org_article_0fd6d14c3a79480893e69c89bcc86d34
source DOAJ Directory of Open Access Journals
title Modeling the invention of a new inference rule: The case of ‘Randomized Clinical Trial’ as an argument scheme for medical science
url http://sfxeu10.hosted.exlibrisgroup.com/loughborough?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-02-23T20%3A30%3A19IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-sage_doaj_&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Modeling%20the%20invention%20of%20a%20new%20inference%20rule:%20The%20case%20of%20%E2%80%98Randomized%20Clinical%20Trial%E2%80%99%20as%20an%20argument%20scheme%20for%C2%A0medical%C2%A0science&rft.jtitle=Argument%20&%20computation&rft.au=Schneider,%20Jodi&rft.date=2018-07-16&rft.volume=9&rft.issue=2&rft.spage=77&rft.epage=89&rft.pages=77-89&rft.issn=1946-2166&rft.eissn=1946-2174&rft_id=info:doi/10.3233/AAC-180036&rft_dat=%3Csage_doaj_%3E10.3233_AAC-180036%3C/sage_doaj_%3E%3Cgrp_id%3Ecdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c324t-9d4f7b95c261a1667271dccb9181a09f9e80ac9a86afa1732eab2241738366473%3C/grp_id%3E%3Coa%3E%3C/oa%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_id=info:pmid/&rft_sage_id=10.3233_AAC-180036&rfr_iscdi=true