Is Boorse’s biostatistical theory of health naturalistic ?
Résumé
Christopher Boorse’s biostatistical theory of health and disease (BST) puts forward a naturalistic definition of these two concepts. Indeed, ‘naturalism’ in the philosophy of medicine was initially defined in terms of the BST, and has often been since. This chapter is an attempt to clarify in what sense Boorse does in fact defend a naturalistic definition of health and disease. We identify different theses that make naturalistic claims regarding health and disease and which help analyze the core claims of Boorse’s naturalism. Some of them have mainly to do with the central role physiology plays in medicine. But, as no physiologist has hitherto proposed a satisfactory scientific definition of ‘disease’ and ‘health’, Boorse’s naturalism must at the same time: (i) propose just such a definition; and (ii) prove that it is central to medicine. Our claim is that even if Boorse’s definition possibly succeeds in (i), it merely assumes (ii). We conclude by examining the necessity that a naturalistic definition of health and disease takes into account not only physiology but also other medical sciences.
Loading...