Boorse's biostatistical theory, the most rigorous attempt to naturalize this baseline, has been shown by Daniels and others to smuggle in covert normative judgments about species-typical functioning.

?Rate how convincing each reason is below to see the overall strength.

1 reason for

1 reason against

Reasons For

1 perspective

Reason for

1 perspective

Reason against

Based on where you are in your exploration

Biostatistical theory(as the main framework being described): A philosophical explanation of health and disease based on how organisms typically function in their species, measured through statistical patterns rather than subjective feelings.
Boorse(as the creator of biostatistical theory): Christopher Boorse is a philosopher who created a specific theory about what counts as a disease or health problem based on how well an organism's parts work according to biological facts.
Covert normative judgments(as the criticism that Boorse's theory contains): Hidden value judgments or opinions about what *should* be the case—basically, sneaking in subjective ideas while pretending to stick to pure facts.
Daniels(as one of the philosophers who criticized biostatistical theory): Norman Daniels is a philosopher who criticized Boorse's theory, arguing that it secretly contains value judgments hidden inside what looks like objective science.
Naturalize(as used in philosophy of science): To explain something by showing how it fits into the natural world and how it works according to natural laws and processes, rather than treating it as something special or separate.
Species-typical functioning(as Daniels's definition of what health care should aim to restore): The ability to do the things that are normal or expected for human beings—like walking, thinking, working, and socializing—without major physical or mental limitations.

1 topic