Outline: The course is a philosophical exploration of the science-society relation, with emphasis on the following themes: (1) values in science; (2) scientific objectivity; and (3) social organization of science. Regarding Theme 1, the students will explore the problem of whether (and to extent) certain kinds (e.g., cultural, ethical, economic, political, etc.) of values could legitimately guide and constrain scientific inquiry. Regarding Theme 2, the students will explore what it means to argue that science "is objective." Regarding Theme 3, the students will explore how scientific issues could be understood as social (i.e., institutional or organizational) issues. Overall, this course will serve as an introduction to philosophical disciplines which explore social dimensions of scientific inquiry (e.g., philosophy of science and social epistemology).
Outline: This course is an introduction to two dimensions of critical thinking and argumentation: (A) human cognition; and (B) diversity of methods of logical inference. Overall, the course aims to help the students to systematize and prioritize their studies on diverse aspects of critical thinking and logical inference.
Outline: The purpose of this course is to introduce students to the basics of formal and informal logic, with emphasis on the latter. Students are also introduced to classical and contemporary debates concerning inference and communication in science.
URL: https://sciphihan.de/.
Title: Evidential Pluralism in Pharmaceutical Regulation.
Abstract: I provide an overview of an emerging area of specialization referred to as “philosophy of pharmaceutical regulation.” As an intersection of disciplines including but not limited to philosophy of science, social epistemology, and political philosophy, philosophy of pharmaceutical regulation addresses various issues concerning the regulatory approval of pharmaceutical products. My overall aim is to highlight research opportunities in light of the problem of evidential pluralism in medicine, i.e., determining whether medical decision-making should be based on diverse types of evidence.
Through a critical literature review, I present three findings. First, philosophy of pharmaceutical regulation has attained distinction via critical engagement with epistemologies of medicine which fail to adequately consider social factors affecting pharmaceutical research. Second, the problem of evidential pluralism motivates deliberations on how regulatory approval processes should be designed in response to how industry interests could adversely affect regulatory decisions. Finally, the problem of evidential pluralism motivates meta-methodological discussions on the role of case studies in substantiating epistemological positions.