Abstract In this paper we present an analysis of the role of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) in the regulation of health claims (claims about additional health benefits provided by foods). Currently there is a line of thought in the nutrition sciences and in regulation that data from RCTs may be able to minimize, or even make superfluous, the role played by expert knowledge in decision making. We analyze the limitations of, as well as the possible intervention of expert judgment in RCTs in pharmacology and nutrition. As a result of our analysis, we argue that both RCTs and expert knowledge are necessary for data generation in health claim regulation. We argue that as far as data generation is concerned, nutrition is more complex than pharmacology, implying that RCTs are more difficult to effectively design and execute. What the latter means is that in nutrition and health claim regulation, expert knowledge is even more important than in pharmacology.

Abstract In thispaper, I present a critical analysis of several philosophical tendencies that go against the use of the notion of truth in epistemology, especially Rorty’s one. Particularly, I claim that truth is a key conceptfor the study of knowledge, especially the scientific knowledge, as it takes a concise form through the experimentalprocedures for eliciting evidences. With the help of this analysis, I seek to undermine some ‘post-truth’ theses by means of analyying some scientific procedures to get evidences (randomiyed clinical trials) in severalfields related to the practical discipline of medicine.

Resumen En este artículo propongo un análisis crítico de varias tendencias filosóficas contrarias al uso de la noción de verdad en el ámbito epistemológico, especialmente la de Rorty. En particular, sostengo que la verdad es un concepto clave para el estudio del conocimiento, especialmente el científico, en cuanto toma una forma concisa en los procedimientos experimentales de carácter probatorio-empírico. Gracias a este enfoque, busco socavar varias tesis de los enfoques de la ‘posverdad’ por medio del uso de un conjunto de procedimientos científicos de obtención de evidencias (ensayos clínicos aleatorios) en varios campos vinculados a la disciplina práctica de la medicina.

Abstract: The text is divided into two parts. In the first one, I present the development of the cyborg as a cultural and technological entity examined from the perspective of the theory of mind, in which the relevance of various fictional and real elements is underlined. In the second part, I reflect on the future that the cyborg-technological society can bring to human beings. In particular, I aim to show that post-human beings constitute an already established reality that requires a moral and social reflection that focuses on the role of experts in relation to the needs of non-expert citizens. The final conclusion pleads for the constitution of norms and regulations that allow to channel the post-human technological advances in accordance with some ethics applied to humans.

Resumen: El texto se divide en dos partes. En la primera presento el desarrollo del cíborg como entidad cultural y tecnológica examinada desde el prisma de la teoría de la mente, donde se subraya la importancia de diversos elementos ficcionales y reales. En la segunda parte reflexiono acerca del futuro que la sociedad tecnológica y cíborg puede deparar al ser humano. En particular, mi objetivo es mostrar que los seres posthumanos constituyen una realidad ya establecida que exige una reflexión de índole moral y social que apunte al papel de los expertos en relación con las necesidades de los ciudadanos no-expertos. La conclusión final aboga por la constitución de normas y regulaciones que permitan encauzar los avances tecnológicos posthumanos en concordancia con éticas aplicadas a los humanos.

Abstract In this paper we present an analysis of the role of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) in the regulation of health claims (claims about additional health benefits provided by foods). Currently there is a line of thought in the nutrition sciences and in regulation that data from RCTs may be able to minimize, or even make superfluous, the role played by expert knowledge in decision making. We analyze the limitations of, as well as the possible intervention of expert judgment in RCTs in pharmacology and nutrition. As a result of our analysis, we argue that both RCTs and expert knowledge are necessary for data generation in health claim regulation. We argue that as far as data generation is concerned, nutrition is more complex than pharmacology, implying that RCTs are more difficult to effectively design and execute. What the latter means is that in nutrition and health claim regulation, expert knowledge is even more important than in pharmacology.