That's a great question. Evidential Pluralism tries to show constructively that diverse evidence can be integrated in a coherent way in causal evaluation. A good example of how this works well in practice is the carcinogenicity evaluation procedure of IARC: monographs.iarc.who.int/iarc-monogra...

Yes short arguments are often more secure. Nothing substantial written up I'm afraid, but I have some brief remarks at the end of this editorial riviste.unimi.it/index.php/th...

Plus, technical causal inferences often rest on unjustified modelling assumptions and tenuous presuppositions of the formal framework. Applied causal inferences can be more secure precisely because of their lack of technical sophistication.

AI is that drunk bloke who's always in the pub, jumping into other people's conversations and talking absolute bollocks.

Perhaps it's possible to formalise evidence evaluation *and* combine different types of evidence. Here's a shameless plug for a recent paper that attempts this to some extent: www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10....

Not humanities enough. Perhaps the aim of a medical humanities paper is to provide an interesting perspective or interpretation, while philosophy of medicine theorises about medicine in a more analytical or general way.

I was told by someone working in medical humanities that philosophy of medicine doesn't qualify for medical humanities funding. I was a bit put out by this, but it does seem that most philosophy of medicine papers are different in kind from medical humanities papers.