The aim of the present paper is to explore whether seasonal outbreaks of infectious diseases may be linked to changes in host microbiomes. This is a very important issue, because one way to have more control over seasonal outbreaks is to understand the factors that underlie them. In this paper, I will evaluate the relevance of the microbiome as one of such factors. The paper is based on two pillars of reasoning. Firstly, on the idea that microbiomes play an important (...) role in their hosts’ defence against infectious diseases. Secondly, on the idea that microbiomes are not stable, but change seasonally. These two ideas are combined in order to argue that seasonal changes in a given microbiome may influence the functionality of the host's immune system and consequently make it easier for infectious agents to infect the host at certain times of year. I will argue that, while this is only a theoretical possibility, certain studies may back up such claims. Furthermore, I will show that this does not necessarily contradict other hypotheses aimed at explaining seasonal outbreaks; in fact, it may even enhance them. (shrink)

The results of econometric modeling are fragile in the sense that minor changes in estimation techniques or sample can lead to statistical models that support inconsistent causal hypotheses. The fragility of econometric results undermines making conclusive inferences from the empirical literature. I argue that the program of evidential pluralism, which originated in the context of medicine and encapsulates to the normative reading of the Russo-Williamson Thesis that causal claims need the support of both difference-making and mechanistic evidence, offers a ground (...) for resolving empirical disagreements. I analyze a recent econometric controversy regarding the tax elasticity of cigarette consumption and smoking intensity. Both studies apply plausible estimation techniques but report inconsistent results. I show that mechanistic evidence allows for discriminating econometric models representing genuine causal relations from accidental dependencies in data. Furthermore, I discuss the differences between biological and social mechanisms and mechanistic evidence across the disciplines. I show that economists mainly rely on mathematical models to represent possible mechanisms. Still, claiming the actuality of the represented mechanisms requires establishing that crucial assumptions of these models are descriptively adequate. I exemplify my approach to assessing the quality of mechanistic evidence in economics with an analysis of two models of rational addiction. (shrink)

Volume 27, Issue 3, September 2020, Page 266-268.

Philosophical analyses of causation have been centred on the question of what causation is. More precisely speaking, philosophers tend to address four different issues: metaphysical (what is causation out there?), epistemological (how can a causal claim be established and assessed?), conceptual (what does the word ‘cause’ mean?), and methodological (what methods ought one to use in order to establish and assess causal claims?). This chapter argues that the practical issue of causation (what is a causal claim for in practice?) is (...) highly relevant to the metaphysical, epistemological, conceptual, and methodological issues of causation. Any philosophical enquiry into causation without an examination of this practical issue is incomplete. In other words, a promising approach to causation ought to take all of the metaphysical, epistemological, conceptual, methodological, and practical issues into account. (shrink)