kth.sePublications
Change search
Link to record
Permanent link

Direct link
Publications (10 of 25) Show all publications
Jerkert, J. (2023). Vad är sinnelagsetik?. Filosofisk Tidskrift (4), 3-20
Open this publication in new window or tab >>Vad är sinnelagsetik?
2023 (Swedish)In: Filosofisk Tidskrift, ISSN 0348-7482, no 4, p. 3-20Article in journal (Other academic) Published
Abstract [sv]

Sinnelagsetik förekommer frekvent i etikundervisningen inom religionsämnet på gymnasiet, men begreppet är nästan okänt i universitetsundervisning inom etik. Här granskas varifrån termen kommer, vad den har betytt historiskt samt vad den betyder i nutida gymnasieundervisning. Slutsatsen blir att undervisningen om sinnelagsetik i gymnasiet är tvivelaktig och bör utgå.

Place, publisher, year, edition, pages
Bokförlaget Thales, 2023
National Category
Ethics
Research subject
Philosophy
Identifiers
urn:nbn:se:kth:diva-328327 (URN)
Note

QC 20231201

Available from: 2023-06-07 Created: 2023-06-07 Last updated: 2023-12-01Bibliographically approved
Jerkert, J. (2021). Albinonis adagio?. Tidig musik (1), 24-25
Open this publication in new window or tab >>Albinonis adagio?
2021 (Swedish)In: Tidig musik, ISSN 1400-5123, no 1, p. 24-25Article in journal (Other (popular science, discussion, etc.)) Accepted
Abstract [sv]

En diskussion av de uppgifter som på senare tid framkommit om ursprunget till det musikstycke som kallas "Albinonis adagio", och som utgavs av Remo Giazotto år 1958.

Place, publisher, year, edition, pages
Stockholm: , 2021
National Category
Musicology
Identifiers
urn:nbn:se:kth:diva-289377 (URN)
Note

QCR 20210201

Available from: 2021-01-27 Created: 2021-01-27 Last updated: 2022-06-25Bibliographically approved
Jerkert, J. (2021). On the Meaning of Medical Evidence Hierarchies. Philosophy of Medicine, 2(1)
Open this publication in new window or tab >>On the Meaning of Medical Evidence Hierarchies
2021 (English)In: Philosophy of Medicine, ISSN 2692-3963, Vol. 2, no 1Article in journal (Refereed) Published
Abstract [en]

Evidence hierarchies are lists of investigative strategies ordered with regard to the claimed strength of evidence. They have been used for a couple of decades within EBM, particularly for the assessment of evidence for treatment recommendations, but they remain controversial. An under-investigated question, from critics and adherents of evidence hierarchies alike, is what the order in the hierarchy means. Four interpretations of the order are distinguished and discussed. The two most credible ones are, roughly expressed, "typically stronger" or "ideally stronger". The well-known GRADE framework seems to assume some "typically stronger" reading. Unfortunately, even if the interpretation of an evidence hierarchy were established, hierarchies appear to be rather unhelpful for the task of evidence aggregation. Nevertheless, a specification of the intended order relation may be helpful in sorting out disagreements in debates on evidence hierarchies. Therefore, proponents and adversaries of evidence hierarchies are equally obliged to specify the order interpretations they are assuming in their arguments.

Place, publisher, year, edition, pages
Pittsburgh: University Library System, University of Pittsburgh, 2021
Keywords
evidence-based medicine, evidence hierarchy, strength of evidence, quality of evidence, order relation, evidence aggregation, lexicographic ordering, GRADE, ceteris paribus, RCT, observational study
National Category
Philosophy
Research subject
Philosophy
Identifiers
urn:nbn:se:kth:diva-283824 (URN)10.5195/philmed.2021.31 (DOI)
Note

QC 20210324

Available from: 2020-10-13 Created: 2020-10-13 Last updated: 2022-06-25Bibliographically approved
Jerkert, J. (2021). Recension av "Forskningsetik för humaniora" av Håkan Salwén [Review]. Filosofisk Tidskrift (4), 45-49
Open this publication in new window or tab >>Recension av "Forskningsetik för humaniora" av Håkan Salwén
2021 (Swedish)In: Filosofisk Tidskrift, ISSN 0348-7482, no 4, p. 45-49Article, book review (Other academic) Accepted
National Category
Philosophy
Research subject
Philosophy
Identifiers
urn:nbn:se:kth:diva-283945 (URN)
Note

QCR 20201020

Available from: 2020-10-13 Created: 2020-10-13 Last updated: 2023-12-11Bibliographically approved
Jerkert, J. (2020). Review of Alex Broadbent, "Philosophy of Medicine" [Review]. Theoria, 86(1), 128-136
Open this publication in new window or tab >>Review of Alex Broadbent, "Philosophy of Medicine"
2020 (English)In: Theoria, ISSN 0040-5825, E-ISSN 1755-2567, Vol. 86, no 1, p. 128-136Article, book review (Refereed) Published
Place, publisher, year, edition, pages
Wiley, 2020
Keywords
medicine, naturalism, cosmopolitanism, medical nihilism, evidence-based medicine, health, disease
National Category
Philosophy
Research subject
Philosophy
Identifiers
urn:nbn:se:kth:diva-266749 (URN)10.1111/theo.12225 (DOI)000511206500001 ()
Note

QC 20200120

Available from: 2020-01-17 Created: 2020-01-17 Last updated: 2024-02-19Bibliographically approved
Jerkert, J. (2019). Science in Theory and Practice: An Introductory Survey (3ed.). Stockholm: KTH Royal Institute of Technology
Open this publication in new window or tab >>Science in Theory and Practice: An Introductory Survey
2019 (English)Book (Other academic)
Place, publisher, year, edition, pages
Stockholm: KTH Royal Institute of Technology, 2019. p. 300 Edition: 3
National Category
Philosophy
Research subject
Philosophy
Identifiers
urn:nbn:se:kth:diva-260310 (URN)978-91-639-5347-7 (ISBN)
Note

Detta är en lärobok i vetenskapsfilosofi. Den utgör en tredje uppdatering och utökning av boken "Scientific Theory and Practice: Six Introductory Texts" (ISBN 978-91-639-5345-3) och kan därför betraktas som en tredje upplaga av denna (observera dock att titeln skiljer sig från nämnda bok). QC 20191112

Available from: 2019-09-27 Created: 2019-09-27 Last updated: 2022-06-26Bibliographically approved
Jerkert, J. (2017). Scientific Theory and Practice: Six Introductory Texts (1ed.). Stockholm: Kungliga Tekniska högskolan
Open this publication in new window or tab >>Scientific Theory and Practice: Six Introductory Texts
2017 (English)Book (Other academic)
Place, publisher, year, edition, pages
Stockholm: Kungliga Tekniska högskolan, 2017. p. 206 Edition: 1
Keywords
philosophy of science, theory of science, research methodology, laws of nature, deduction, induction, abduction, explanations, causality, experiment, blinding, randomisation, theory dependence, underdetermination, reductionism, falsificationism, Popper, Kuhn, paradigm, scientific journals, scholarly journals, peer review, open peer review, open access, statistical hypothesis testing, epistemology, Agrippa's trilemma, scepticism, relativism, constructivism, naturalism, materialism, physicalism, vetenskapsfilosofi, vetenskapsteori, forskningsmetodik, naturlagar, deduktion, induktion, abduktion, förklaringar, kausalitet, experiment, blindning, randomisering, teoriberoende, underbestämning, reduktionism, falsifikationism, Popper, Kuhn, paradigm, vetenskapliga tidskrifter, peer review, open peer review, open access, statistisk hypotesprövning, epistemologi, Agrippas trilemma, skepticism, relativism, konstruktivism, naturalism, materialism, fysikalism
National Category
Philosophy
Research subject
Philosophy
Identifiers
urn:nbn:se:kth:diva-224526 (URN)978-91-639-5345-3 (ISBN)
Note

Detta är en lärobok i vetenskapsfilosofi.QC 20180326

Available from: 2018-03-19 Created: 2018-03-19 Last updated: 2024-03-15Bibliographically approved
Jerkert, J. (2016). peer review. Nationalencyklopedin
Open this publication in new window or tab >>peer review
2016 (Swedish)Other (Other academic)
Abstract [sv]

Artikel för Nationalencyklopedin som förklarar vad peer review är och hur det fungerar.

Place, publisher, year, pages
Nationalencyklopedin, 2016. p. 1
Keywords
peer review, vetenskaplig publicering, vetenskapliga tidskrifter
National Category
Philosophy
Research subject
Philosophy
Identifiers
urn:nbn:se:kth:diva-183775 (URN)
Note

QC 20160323

Available from: 2016-03-18 Created: 2016-03-18 Last updated: 2022-06-23Bibliographically approved
Jerkert, J. (2015). Negative mechanistic reasoning in medical intervention assessment. Theoretical Medicine and Bioethics, 36(6), 425-437
Open this publication in new window or tab >>Negative mechanistic reasoning in medical intervention assessment
2015 (English)In: Theoretical Medicine and Bioethics, ISSN 1386-7415, E-ISSN 1573-0980, Vol. 36, no 6, p. 425-437Article in journal (Refereed) Published
Abstract [en]

Traditionally, mechanistic reasoning has been assigned a negligible role in standard EBM (evidence-based medicine) literature, although some recent authors have argued for an upgrading. Even so, mechanistic reasoning that has received attention has almost exclusively been positive – both in an epistemic sense of claiming that there is a mechanistic chain and in a health-related sense of there being claimed benefits for the patient. Negative mechanistic reasoning has been neglected, both in the epistemic and in the health-related sense. I distinguish three main types of negative mechanistic reasoning and subsume them under a new definition of mechanistic reasoning in the context of assessing medical interventions. This definition is wider than a previous suggestion in the literature. Each negative type corresponds to a range of evidential strengths, and it is argued that there are differences with respect to the typical evidential strengths. The variety of negative mechanistic reasoning should be acknowledged in EBM, and presents a serious challenge to proponents of so-called medical hierarchies of evidence.

Place, publisher, year, edition, pages
Springer Netherlands, 2015
Keywords
mechanistic reasoning, evidence-based medicine, hierarchy of evidence
National Category
Philosophy
Research subject
Philosophy
Identifiers
urn:nbn:se:kth:diva-163867 (URN)10.1007/s11017-015-9348-2 (DOI)000365783100004 ()26597869 (PubMedID)2-s2.0-84948386104 (Scopus ID)
Note

QC 20151211

Available from: 2015-04-13 Created: 2015-04-13 Last updated: 2022-06-23Bibliographically approved
Jerkert, J. (2015). Philosophical Issues in Medical Intervention Research. (Licentiate dissertation). Stockholm: Kungliga Tekniska högskolan
Open this publication in new window or tab >>Philosophical Issues in Medical Intervention Research
2015 (English)Licentiate thesis, comprehensive summary (Other academic)
Abstract [en]

The thesis consists of an introduction and two papers. In the introduction a brief historical survey of empirical investigations into the effectiveness of medicinal interventions is given. Also, the main ideas of the EBM (evidence-based medicine) movement are presented. Both included papers can be viewed as investigations into the reasonableness of EBM and its hierarchies of evidence.

Paper I: Typically, in a clinical trial patients with specified symptoms are given either of two or more predetermined treatments. Health endpoints in these groups are then compared using statistical methods. Concerns have been raised, not least from adherents of so-called alternative medicine, that clinical trials do not offer reliable evidence for some types of treatment, in particular for highly individualized treatments, for example traditional homeopathy. It is argued that such concerns are unfounded. There are two minimal conditions related to the nature of the treatments that must be fulfilled for evaluability in a clinical trial, namely (1) the proper distinction of the two treatment groups and (2) the elimination of confounding variables or variations. These are delineated, and a few misunderstandings are corrected. It is concluded that the conditions do not preclude the testing of alternative medicine, whether individualized or not.

Paper II: Traditionally, mechanistic reasoning has been assigned a negligible role in standard EBM literature, although some recent authors have argued for an upgrading. Even so, mechanistic reasoning that has received attention has almost exclusively been positive -- both in an epistemic sense of claiming that there is a mechanistic chain and in a health-related sense of there being claimed benefits for the patient. Negative mechanistic reasoning has been neglected, both in the epistemic and in the health-related sense. I distinguish three main types of negative mechanistic reasoning and subsume them under a new definition of mechanistic reasoning in the context of assessing medical interventions. Although this definition is wider than a previous suggestion in the literature, there are still other instances of reasoning that concern mechanisms but do not (and should not) count as mechanistic reasoning. One of the three distinguished types, which is negative only in the health-related sense, has a corresponding positive counterpart, whereas the other two, which are epistemically negative, do not have such counterparts, at least not that are particularly interesting as evidence. Accounting for negative mechanistic reasoning in EBM is therefore partly different from accounting for positive mechanistic reasoning. Each negative type corresponds to a range of evidential strengths, and it is argued that there are differences with respect to the typical strengths. The variety of negative mechanistic reasoning should be acknowledged in EBM, and presents a serious challenge to proponents of so-called medical hierarchies of evidence.

Place, publisher, year, edition, pages
Stockholm: Kungliga Tekniska högskolan, 2015. p. 42
Series
Theses in philosophy from the Royal Institute of Technology, ISSN 1650-8831 ; 53
Keywords
scientific method, study design, methodology, alternative medicine, medical research, individualized treatments, eligibility, confounders, evidence, evidence-based medicine, mechanistic reasoning, hierarchy of evidence
National Category
Philosophy
Research subject
Philosophy
Identifiers
urn:nbn:se:kth:diva-163872 (URN)978-91-7595-423-3 (ISBN)
Presentation
2015-04-28, Seminarierummet, Avd. för Filosofi, Brinellvägen 32, Stockholm, 13:00 (English)
Opponent
Supervisors
Note

QC 20150413

Available from: 2015-04-13 Created: 2015-04-13 Last updated: 2022-06-23Bibliographically approved
Organisations
Identifiers
ORCID iD: ORCID iD iconorcid.org/0000-0001-9373-3067

Search in DiVA

Show all publications