What should count as reliable evidence supporting medical inductions when traditional evidentiary hierarchies are epistemically inadequate? This dissertation argues that the evidentiary status of mechanisms, broadly understood as reasoning based on understanding of causal biomedical systems, in rare disease medical research should be raised. This is an epistemological claim about evidence hierarchies in medicine, and its defense will be grounded in philosophy of science analysis (specifically via theories of classification in philosophy of medicine, the Cartwrightian account of causation, and the nature of scientific induction) of case studies. Current evidence-based medicine hierarchies prioritize evidence generation that propounds biostatistical inductions based on historical naturalist reference class foundations. Generating biostatistical inductions is not an epistemically adequate method of evidence generation for rare disease because of epistemic limitations surrounding the ability to generate and the realistic epistemic power of developing a statistical induction in rare disease. The refinement of reliable research methodology and accurate inductions (epistemological progress) and therapeutic breakthroughs (pragmatic progress) in rare disease medicine depend on the contribution of mechanistic reasoning to evidence-based decisions rather than on statistically-enabled evidence generation.

In this episode, it is held that love isn’t real, or at the very most, it could exist, but we will never know for sure if we have experienced it or not. With romantic love, we continually lack certainty. Three conditions for the satisfaction of romantic love are put forth, with 2 being targeted with objections as part of the argument. So what if romantic love doesn’t exist? There are a lot of other outstanding aims in life.

In this episode, the game-theoretic and social choice-theoretic aspects of the popular TV series, “The Traitors” are discussed. Additionally, the asymmetric pliability of speech and accusation is explored. This is a special episode — a discussion with award-winning philosophy scholar, Euan Morgan.

Join Emma in conversation with London School of Economics classmate, Euan Morgan. Euan Morgan, award-winning philosophy scholar, takes us through his master’s dissertation, “Bending without Breaking: The Merits of Counterspeech.” The interview covers background on Speech Act Theory, Blocking as a counterspeech technique, Bending as a counterspeech technique, and the plausibility of unintentional bending as a form of counterspeech. Listen to the exclusive interview now!

It’s time to talk about my disseration. This short teaser introduces the dissertation episode series that explains my Master’s dissertation from the London School of Economics. The dissertation was titled, “Going for Gold: A Proposal to Raise the Evidentiary Standard of Mechanisms in Rare Disease Medicine.” The special dissertation episodes will be released as detailed below:

Parts 1-3 will appear in Episode 89 of Emma-ism. Part 4 will be Episode 90!

Part 1: Introducing the Project & Offering a Brief Overview of Evidence in Medicine

Part 2: Establishing a Need for Recalibration of the Evidence Standard

Part 3: Arguing for Mechanisms Driving Epistemological Progress

Part 4: Providing the Implementation Plan & Concluding Remarks

In this episode, Mathias Risse’s 2004 claim that “unless majoritarians present a more complete defense, it is irrational to grant majority rule its default status” is evaluated. It is argues that it is rational to grant majority rule the default status that it occupies. This is defended through disarming Risse’s 4 objections (argumentative content, preference intensity, omission of relevant information, proportionate consideration), proposing new ideal desiderata of a default aggregation rule, and a statement on practicality regardless of justificatory power.

In this episode, manipulability in the conclave voting procedure is discussed. Rest in peace to Pope Francis. This podcast comes as a discussion of the aggregation method used by cardinals in electing the next pope. The sequential supermajority voting system allows for manipulability at several levels, where there are clear cases when cardinals (voters) have incentive to falsify or misrepresent their preferences. While supermajority rule can seem to numbers-wise (dictated by ‘experts’ in the faith) give a strong mandate for papal infallibility, potential for manipulability seems to contradict that consequential mandate.

In this episode, it is argued that the causal efficacy of an act is what matters to its evaluation, not its auspiciousness. Discussion of decision theories of Jeffrey and Savage are what motivates that claim. Further, an example of the Borough Market sandwich stand provides a nice illustration of act evaluation in practice.

In this episode, it is argued that no-platforming should be opposed on purely epistemic grounds because it deprives students of epistemic benefits that would have been realized had the contrarian (cancelled academic) been allowed to speak. This is motivated by raising the specific epistemic focus of higher education institutes. Also, the contrarian’s ability to push ‘apprentice’-like students to more deeply understand their axiomatic adherence in the discipline, their live intellectual agency, and paradigmatic display of epistemic humility all support the argument.

In this episode, it is argued that it is not a reasonable goal for cooperative game theory to try to find a single privileged solution concept for bargaining games. Moreover, if it is a reasonable goal of cooperative game theory to try to find a single, unequivocal solution concept for bargaining games, then there would not be persisting and jutified irreconcilable variance in opinions about tradeoffs in agreement structure. To motivate this, theoretical convergence in quantum mechanics on the Schrödinger equation is discussed, and Nash, Kalai-Smordinsky, and Utilitarian solution concepts are raised.