Skip Navigation


IJE Advance Access originally published online on January 12, 2009
International Journal of Epidemiology 2009 38(3):675-677; doi:10.1093/ije/dyn361
This Article
Right arrow Full Text
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow All Versions of this Article:
38/3/675    most recent
dyn361v1
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to My Personal Archive
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Vineis, P.
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Vineis, P.
Social Bookmarking
Add to CiteULike   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us  
What's this?

Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the International Epidemiological Association © The Author 2009; all rights reserved.

Viewpoint

The skeptical epidemiologist

Paolo Vineis*

Department of Epidemiology and Public Health, Imperial College, Norfolk Place W2 1PG, London.

*Corresponding author. Imperial College London. E-mail: p.vineis@imperial.ac.uk

Accepted 6 November 2008

The first 150 words of the full text of this article appear below.


   A simplified epistemology
 
Should epidemiologists try to infer that certain exposures are ‘causes’ of certain diseases? Or should they just restrict themselves to a mere description of ‘possible’ risk factors, according to a ‘modest’ or ‘humble’ epistemology?1 There is in fact an old tradition in science that rejects the idea of causality. Such tradition has its roots in early ‘positivism’ and champions in Ernst Mach and Bertrand Russell (who compared the concept of cause to monarchy, an old-fashioned but not entirely innocuous relic of the past). Positivist science preferred not to take a stand on causation, and to stick to mathematical functions instead.

Epistemology has evolved since then, and causality is again in the horizon of scientists.2 However, we should be aware that there are at least two clearly distinct levels in the use of the concept of cause. On one side there is a ‘cognitive’ use, i.e. this use refers to what . . . [Full Text of this Article]


   Is epidemiology junk science?
 

Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us    What's this?


This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
 Int J EpidemiolHome page
J. P Vandenbroucke
Commentary: 'Smoking and lung cancer'--the embryogenesis of modern epidemiology
Int. J. Epidemiol., October 1, 2009; 38(5): 1193 - 1196.
[Full Text] [PDF]