Toward a Hermeneutical Conception of Medicine: A Conversation with Charles Taylor
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In this interview, Charles Taylor discusses a number of philosophical questions in contemporary medicine. The interview was conducted in Montreal, Canada, on September 19, 2008. Only a portion of the interview is presented here because of space constraints. The discussion examines concerns that recur through several of the papers published in this issue of the Journal of Medicine and Philosophy. Readers may find the introduction to this theme issue a helpful complement to the interview, where Taylor’s principal philosophical ideas and publications relevant to philosophy of medicine are outlined. Franco Carnevale: There are a number of accumulating malaises within contemporary medicine over how to think about a variety of problems. One problem is how medicine struggles with an intersection of natural sciences and human sciences. How can we articulate a philosophical conception of medicine that does not slide into a mind-body split?
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.037 | 0.039 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.027 | 0.069 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.011 | 0.020 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.017 | 0.036 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".