Simon Lohse

Uncertainty has been highlighted as a paradoxical consequence of precision medicine (PM). In the life sciences and medicine, uncertainty is often conceptualized as something that can be clearly delimited and overcome by more information and better understanding derived from more research, more data, better tools etc. Building on the observation of uncertainty in PM and exploring it further by differentiating between socio-technical, epistemological and ontological uncertainty, we claim that at least some forms will likely turn out to be non-transient: Uncertainty in PM does not only result from missing or incomplete information, but also from insights into biological complexity and the destabilization of evidence frameworks. We conclude by discussing some implications for a successful implementation of PM in clinical practice by adequately navigating uncertainty.

I discuss reproducibility issues in animal-based research in biomedicine and scrutinise the notion that the causes of non-reproducible results are, by and large, the same as in other disciplines. I argue that there are certain challenges of animal experimentation that are important for a proper analysis of reproducibility problems but have not been sufficiently analysed in this context. I focus on challenges related to standardisation practices and trade-offs between epistemic ideals and moral considerations in animal experimentation. Using an approach that integrates epistemological and ethical perspectives, I explore these challenges and draw out normative consequences of my analysis for the discussion revolving around questionable research practices in animal-based biomedicine and generic reform initiatives.

Welche Argumente sollen eine "Eigenstandigkeit" sozialer Phanomene begrunden? Simon Lohse widmet sich dieser Frage aus wissenschaftsphilosophischer Perspektive. Unter kritischen Gesichtspunkten diskutiert er die wichtigsten ontologischen Argumente, die innerhalb der Sozialwissenschaften gegen die Position des Methodologischen Individualismus vorgebracht werden, zum Beispiel emergentistische Argumente und Argumente, die von einer Verwobenheit von individuellen Akteuren und Umwelt ausgehen. Das Buch soll zu einem besseren Verstandnis eines Kernproblems der Sozialwissenschaften innerhalb der Wissenschaftsphilosophie beitragen und auch einen klarenden Beitrag zur theoretischen Diskussion in den Sozialwissenschaften selbst leisten.

We analyse insufficient epistemic pluralism and associated problems in science-based policy advice during the COVID-19 pandemic drawing on specific arguments in Paul Feyerabend’s philosophy. Our goal is twofold: to deepen our understanding of the epistemic shortcomings in science-based policy during the pandemic, and to assess the merits and problems of Feyerabend’s arguments for epistemic pluralism as well as their relevance for policy-making. We discuss opportunities and challenges of integrating a plurality of viewpoints from within and outside science into policy advice thus contributing to discussions about normative issues concerning evidence and expertise in policy-making.

The COVID-19 pandemic has been the scene of several epistemic battles at the science-society interface, creating deadlocks that have been hard to overcome. To cut through the paralysing elements of these discussions, we present an analysis of three epistemic battles, concerning empirical evidence, expertise, and model projections. Our analysis singles out a crucial factor that drives unhelpful disputes like these: the contested prioritisation of specific types of scientific knowledge, which are considered adequate for policy only if they meet predetermined standards. To move beyond these deadlocks, we introduce the conceptual tools of epistemic pluralism and contextualism, which give concrete indications in the three controversies we discuss and show us the way forward in debates on science-based policy.

This article discusses Mesoudi et al.’s suggestion to synthesise the social sciences based on a theory of cultural evolution. In view of their proposal, I shall discuss two key questions. (I) Is their theory of cultural evolution a promising candidate to synthesise the social sciences? (II) What is the added value of evolutionary approaches for the social sciences? My aim is to highlight some hitherto underestimated challenges for transformative evolutionary approaches to the social sciences that come into view when one looks at these questions against the backdrop of actual scientific practice in the social sciences.

In this paper, we use the case of the COVID-19 pandemic in Europe to address the question of what kind of knowledge we should incorporate into public health policy. We show that policy-making during the COVID-19 pandemic has been biomedicine-centric in that its evidential basis marginalised input from non-biomedical disciplines. We then argue that in particular the social sciences could contribute essential expertise and evidence to public health policy in times of biomedical emergencies and that we should thus strive for a tighter integration of the social sciences in future evidence-based policy-making. This demand faces challenges on different levels, which we identify and discuss as potential inhibitors for a more pluralistic evidential basis.

This paper argues that research on normative issues in the life sciences will benefit from a tighter integration of philosophy of science. We examine research on ethical, legal and social issues in the life sciences (“ELSI”) and discuss three illustrative examples of normative issues that arise in different areas of the life sciences. These examples show that important normative questions are highly dependent on epistemic issues which so far have not been addressed sufficiently in ELSI, RRI and related areas of research. Accordingly, we argue for the integration of research on the epistemic aspects of the relevant areas of science into ELSI research to provide a better basis for addressing normative questions.

Der Artikel diskutiert Niklas Luhmanns Konzeption von Kommunikation als emergentem Phänomen. Erstens soll gezeigt werden, dass sich Luhmann, entgegen jüngster Einwände, in der Tat als sozialer Emergentist rekonstruieren und als solcher in die aktuelle Debatte um Reduktion und Emergenz des Sozialen einordnen lässt. Zweitens soll dadurch Licht auf die generellen Probleme und Voraussetzungen einer emergentistischen Soziologie geworfen werden. Um diese Ziele zu erreichen, wird zunächst geklärt, welche Positionen sich in der Soziologie grundsätzlich gegenüber stehen und auf welcher Grundlage Luhmann als Emergentist einzuordnen ist. Anschließend soll die Emergenz der Kommunikation als eigenständiges soziales Phänomen erläutert und ins Verhältnis zum Individuum gesetzt werden. Schließlich wird Luhmanns Konzeption mit Hilfe einiger Adäquatheitsbedingungen aus der allgemeinen Wissenschaftsphilosophie als unzureichend kritisiert. Ziel ist dabei auch die Klärung der Bedingungen für eine plausible Emergenztheorie innerhalb der Soziologie. Nach einer abschließenden Zusammenfassung der wesentlichen Ergebnisse soll ein Ausblick auf eine aussichtsreiche soziologische Emergenzkonzeption geboten werden.

Mein Kommentar wird sich aus einer Meta-Perspektive mit drei Fragen und gängigen Antworten auf diese beschäftigen. (1) Warum ist die Soziologie multiparadigmatisch? (2) Wie ist das zu bewerten? (3) Was tun? Im Anschluss werde ich den soziologieinternen Antwortvorschlägen auf diese Fragen – insbesondere auf die erste Frage – das grundlegende Problem der ungenügenden Evidenzbasis diagnostizieren, welches auch auf den Beitrag von Schülein durchschlägt, sich allerdings durch die kritische Erforschung der multiparadigmatischen Verfasstheit der Soziologie mittels einer integrierten Wissenschaftsforschung angehen ließe. Der Kommentar schließt mit einigen skizzenhaften Vorschlägen für ein solches Unterfangen.

In this article, I will discuss two prominent views on the relevance and irrelevance of ontological investigations for the social sciences, namely, ontological foundationalism and anti-ontological pragmatism. I will argue that both views are unsatisfactory. The subsequent part of the article will introduce an alternative role for ontological projects in the philosophy of the social sciences that fares better in this respect by paying attention to the ontological assumptions of actual social scientific theories, models, and related explanatory practices. I will illustrate and support this alternative through discussion of three concrete cases.