Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

The three paradoxes lost a response to Moore and Hutchins

  • Published:
Metamedicine Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Moore and Hutchin's [1] assertion that the application of classical logic as the method of diagnostic reasoning may result in three paradoxes is critically examined.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Moore, G. W., and Hutchins, G. M.: 1981, ‘Three paradoxes of medical diagnosis’,Metamedicine 2, pp. 197–215. (this issue)

    Google Scholar 

  2. Sadegh-zadeh, K.: 1977, ‘Grundlagenprobleme einer Theorie der klinischen Praxis. Teil 1: Explikation des medizinischen Diagnosebegriffs’,Metamed 1, 76–102.

    Google Scholar 

  3. Sadegh-zadeh, K.: 1981, ‘Foundations of clinical praxiology. Part 1: The relativity of medical diagnosis’,Metamedicine 2, pp. 183–196. (this issue)

    Google Scholar 

  4. Thomasma, D. C., and Pellegrino, E. D.: 1981, ‘Philosophy of medicine as the source for medical ethics’,Metamedicine 2, 5–11.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Institute for Theory and History of Medicine, University of Münster, Waldeyerstrasse 27, D-4400, Münster, F. R. G.

    Kazem Sadegh-Zadeh

Authors
  1. Kazem Sadegh-Zadeh
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Sadegh-Zadeh, K. The three paradoxes lost a response to Moore and Hutchins. Metamedicine 2, 217–233 (1981). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00884424

Download citation

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00884424

Keywords

Search

Navigation