| Title |
“Personal Knowledge” in Medicine and the Epistemic Shortcomings of Scientism
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Journal of Bioethical Inquiry, November 2015
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s11673-015-9661-5 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Hugh Marshall McHugh, Simon Thomas Walker |
| Abstract |
In this paper, we outline a framework for understanding the different kinds of knowledge required for medical practice and use this framework to show how scientism undermines aspects of this knowledge. The framework is based on Michael Polanyi's claim that knowledge is primarily the product of the contemplations and convictions of persons and yet at the same time carries a sense of universality because it grasps at reality. Building on Polanyi's ideas, we propose that knowledge can be described along two intersecting "dimensions": the tacit-explicit and the particular-general. These dimensions supersede the familiar "objective-subjective" dichotomy, as they more accurately describe the relationship between medical science and medical practice. Scientism, we argue, excludes tacit and particular knowledge and thereby distorts "clinical reality" and impairs medical practice and medical ethics. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 1 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 1 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 21 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 21 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 4 | 19% |
| Other | 3 | 14% |
| Lecturer | 2 | 10% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 2 | 10% |
| Student > Bachelor | 2 | 10% |
| Other | 3 | 14% |
| Unknown | 5 | 24% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 7 | 33% |
| Arts and Humanities | 2 | 10% |
| Environmental Science | 1 | 5% |
| Philosophy | 1 | 5% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 1 | 5% |
| Other | 3 | 14% |
| Unknown | 6 | 29% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 22 December 2022.
All research outputs
#21,047,455
of 25,848,962 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Bioethical Inquiry
#581
of 674 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#293,970
of 397,625 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Bioethical Inquiry
#18
of 20 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,848,962 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 10th percentile – i.e., 10% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 674 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 10.4. This one is in the 6th percentile – i.e., 6% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 397,625 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 14th percentile – i.e., 14% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 20 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.