Editor, Editors, USER, admin, Bureaucrats, Check users, dev, editor, founder, Interface administrators, member, oversight, Suppressors, Administrators, translator
11,119
edits
Difference between revisions of "Introduction"
no edit summary
| Line 462: | Line 462: | ||
But let's hear what the two players say, the dentist and the patient, in the informative dialogue. | But let's hear what the two players say, the dentist and the patient, in the informative dialogue. | ||
The dentist tells the patient that he is suffering from severe malocclusion and that it should be treated to improve its aesthetics and chewing function. The patient, however, replies firmly: «''No way, I haven't the slightest idea to do it at all, doctor, because I might even have an unrepresentative smile, but I eat very well.''»<br>The dentist’s reply is ready, so the practitioner insists by saying: «''but you have a serious malocclusion with an openbite and a unilateral posterior crossbite, you should already have problems with bruxism and swallowing, as well as posture.''»<br>The patient closes the confrontation in a decisive way: «''absolutely false: I chew very well, I swallow very well and at night I snore alot so I don’t grind; besides, I’m a sportsman and I don’t have any postural disturbance''». | |||
Now the conclusion remains very critical because we might be finding ourselves in front of a verbal language of the patient which is misleading because it is not specific and does not respond to a detailed physiopathogenetic knowledge of the occlusal state; or, paradoxically, we are otherwise facing a machine language converted into verbal language which guarantees the integrity of the system. At this point the situation is truly embarrassing because neither the patient nor the observer (dentist) will be able to say with certainty that the System is in a “Malocclusion” state. | Now the conclusion remains very critical because we might be finding ourselves in front of a verbal language of the patient which is misleading because it is not specific and does not respond to a detailed physiopathogenetic knowledge of the occlusal state; or, paradoxically, we are otherwise facing a machine language converted into verbal language which guarantees the integrity of the system. At this point the situation is truly embarrassing because neither the patient nor the observer (dentist) will be able to say with certainty that the System is in a “Malocclusion” state. | ||
It is precisely at this moment that one remembers the criticism of the American Statistician Association titled “''Statistical inference in the 21st century: A World Beyond p <0.05''”, which urges the researcher to accept uncertainty, be sensible reflective, open and modest in his statements<ref name="wasser" />: which basically translates into a search for interdisciplinarity. | It is precisely at this moment that one remembers the criticism of the American Statistician Association titled “''Statistical inference in the 21st century: A World Beyond p <0.05''”, which urges the researcher to accept uncertainty, be sensible reflective, open and modest in his statements<ref name="wasser" />: which basically translates into a search for interdisciplinarity. | ||
Interdisciplinarity, in fact, could answer such a complex question; but it is nonetheless necessary to interpret the biological phenomenon of "“Malocclusion”" with a ''stochastic forma mentis of'' which we will discuss in detail later.. | Interdisciplinarity, in fact, could answer such a complex question; but it is nonetheless necessary to interpret the biological phenomenon of "“Malocclusion”" with a ''stochastic forma mentis of'' which we will discuss in detail later.. | ||