David Bourget (Western Ontario)
David Chalmers (ANU, NYU)
Rafael De Clercq
Ezio Di Nucci
Jack Alan Reynolds
Learn more about PhilPapers
Theoretical Medicine and Bioethics 7 (3) (1986)
From the standpoint of the theory of medicine, a formulation is given of three types of reasoning used by physicians. The first is deduction from probability models (as in prognosis or genetic counseling for Mendelian disorders). It is a branch of mathematics that leads to predictive statements about outcomes of individual events in terms of known formal assumptions and parameters. The second type is inference (as in interpreting clinical trials). In it the arguments from replications of the same process (data) lead to conclusions about the parameters of a system, without calling into question either the probabilistic model or the criteria of evidence. The third is illation (as in the elucidation of symptoms in a patient). It is a process whereby, in the light of the total evidence and the conclusions from the other types of reasoning, one may modify, expand, simplify or demolish a conceptual framework proposed for deductions, and modify the nature of the evidence sought, the criteriology, the axioms, and the surmised complexity of the scientific theory. (The process of diagnosis as applied to a patient may in extreme cases lead to the discovery of an entirely new disease with its own, quite new, set of diagnostic criteria. This course cannot be accommodated inside either of the other two types of reasoning.) Illation has something of the character of Kuhn's scientific revolution in physics; but it differs in that it is the nature, not the degree or frequency of change that distinguishes it from Kuhn's normal science.
|Keywords||No keywords specified (fix it)|
|Categories||categorize this paper)|
Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server
Configure custom proxy (use this if your affiliation does not provide a proxy)
|Through your library|
References found in this work BETA
No references found.
Citations of this work BETA
No citations found.
Similar books and articles
Ilkka Niiniluoto (1999). Defending Abduction. Philosophy of Science 66 (3):451.
Maxwell J. Roberts (2000). Strategies in Relational Inference. Thinking and Reasoning 6 (1):1 – 26.
Markus Knauff & Christoph Schlieder (2004). Spatial Inference: No Difference Between Mental Images and Mental Models. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 27 (4):589-590.
Jaap C. Hage, Ronald Leenes & Arno R. Lodder (1993). Hard Cases: A Procedural Approach. [REVIEW] Artificial Intelligence and Law 2 (2):113-167.
Jennifer S. Trueblood & Jerome R. Busemeyer (2011). A Quantum Probability Account of Order Effects in Inference. Cognitive Science 35 (8):1518-1552.
M. Wayne Cooper (1992). Should Physicians Be Bayesian Agents? Theoretical Medicine and Bioethics 13 (4).
Huajie Liu (2006). Instability, Modus Ponens and Uncertainty of Deduction. Frontiers of Philosophy in China 1 (4):658-674.
Bruno G. Bara & Monica Bucciarelli (2000). Deduction and Induction: Reasoning Through Mental Models. [REVIEW] Mind and Society 1 (1):95-107.
Ingo Brigandt (2010). Scientific Reasoning Is Material Inference: Combining Confirmation, Discovery, and Explanation. International Studies in the Philosophy of Science 24 (1):31-43.
Added to index2009-01-28
Total downloads7 ( #423,486 of 1,796,319 )
Recent downloads (6 months)2 ( #348,557 of 1,796,319 )
How can I increase my downloads?