Editor, Editors, USER, admin, Bureaucrats, Check users, dev, editor, founder, Interface administrators, oversight, Suppressors, Administrators, translator
10,784
edits
Difference between revisions of "Logic of medical language"
no edit summary
| Line 37: | Line 37: | ||
===Clinical case and logic of medical language=== | ===Clinical case and logic of medical language=== | ||
The patient, Mary Poppins (a fictitious name), has benefited from multidisciplinary medical attention for over a decade, receiving care from dentists, general practitioners, neurologists, and dermatologists. Her medical history is summarized as follows: <blockquote>At the age of 40, Mrs. Poppins first noticed the appearance of small spots of abnormal pigmentation on the right side of her face. After ten years, a series of significant developments occurred in her condition. During a hospitalization in dermatology, she underwent a skin biopsy, which revealed a diagnosis of localized facial scleroderma, commonly called morphea. Following the diagnosis, she was prescribed corticosteroids. At 44, she began to experience involuntary contractions of the right masseter and temporal muscles, which over time increased in frequency and duration. She described these episodes as blocks, both daytime and nighttime. At her first neurological evaluation, although the discoloration was less marked, her face showed significant asymmetry, with a retraction of the right cheek and a noticeable hypertrophy of the right masseter and temporal muscles. She received various diagnoses, reflecting the challenges posed by the limitations of medical language. </blockquote>The clinical context is condensed as follows: the patient, using her natural language, communicates the psychophysical discomfort that has long tormented her. After conducting a series of investigations, such as anamnesis, stratigraphy, and computed tomography of the temporomandibular joint (Figures 1, 2, and 3), the dentist formulates a diagnosis of "Temporomandibular Disorders" (TMD).<ref>{{cita libro | |||
The clinical | |||
| autore = Tanaka E | | autore = Tanaka E | ||
| autore2 = Detamore MS | | autore2 = Detamore MS | ||
| Line 80: | Line 76: | ||
| oaf = <!-- qualsiasi valore --> | | oaf = <!-- qualsiasi valore --> | ||
| PMID = 30122441 | | PMID = 30122441 | ||
}}</ref> | }}</ref> On the other hand, the neurologist opts for a diagnosis of organic neuromotor pathology, called "Neuropathic Orofacial Pain" (nOP), excluding or minimizing the TMD component as the primary cause. In order to adopt an unbiased approach, we will consider the patient's condition as "TMDs/nOP", thus not favoring either of the two interpretations.{{q2|<!--31-->But who will be right?}} | ||
{{q2|<!--31-->But who will be right?}} | |||
We are obviously in front of a series of topics that deserve adequate discussion because they concern clinical diagnostics. | |||
----Unlike formal languages used in mathematics, logic, and computer programming – characterized by artificial systems of signs governed by strict syntactic and semantic rules – most scientific languages evolve as an extension of natural language, enriching it with a set of technical terms. Medical language falls into this intermediate category: it arises from the expansion of everyday language by incorporating specific terminologies such as "neuropathic pain," "Temporomandibular Disorders," "demyelination," "allodynia," etc. This evolution does not involve the adoption of syntax or semantics distinct from those of the natural language from which it derives. Take, for example, the term "disease" in the context of patient Mary Poppins: a key word in medicine, essential for nosology, research, and clinical practice. Although it represents a fundamental concept in the field, its definition remains remarkably vague and not fully outlined. This ambiguity underscores the intrinsic complexity of medical language, which, despite being enriched with technical terminology, maintains the flexible and sometimes indeterminate characteristics of the natural language from which it originates. | |||
The exact meaning of the term "disease" eludes unanimous understanding, primarily interesting some philosophers of medicine, while most professionals in the field seem unconcerned with its precise definition. The fundamental question is whether the concept of "disease" should be associated with the subject or patient in individual terms, or whether it should refer to the System, that is, the living organism as a whole. This raises a further question: is it possible that a patient, who is not considered sick at time <math>t_n</math>, might actually coexist with a system that was already in a state of structural damage at an earlier moment, indicated as <math>t_{i,-1}</math>? | |||
This reflection leads to deep discussions on the dynamic nature of health and disease, proposing that disease should not be seen simply as an instantaneous state or a static condition, but as an evolutionary process, influenced by temporal factors and the interaction between different biological and pathological systems within the organism. This perspective requires a more sophisticated and probably quantitative interpretation of health, taking into account the temporal variations and dynamics between various biological and pathological systems. | |||
----<blockquote>The use of the term "language without semantics," treated as if it were irrelevant or devoid of consequences, and its derivatives share the same lack of semantic clarity. This statement underscores a deep criticism of the assumption that language can exist in a purely structural or formal form, lacking semantic content that defines its meaning. In this way, the essential interdependence between semantics and language for understanding and effective communication is highlighted.''<ref>{{cita libro | |||
|autore=Sadegh-Zadeh Kazem | |autore=Sadegh-Zadeh Kazem | ||
|titolo=Handbook of Analytic Philosophy of Medicine | |titolo=Handbook of Analytic Philosophy of Medicine | ||
| Line 101: | Line 95: | ||
|DOI=10.1007/978-94-007-2260-6 | |DOI=10.1007/978-94-007-2260-6 | ||
|OCLC= | |OCLC= | ||
}}</ref> | }}</ref>''</blockquote> | ||
; | ;In short, | ||
* | *is the patient Mary Poppins sick, or is the chewing System damaged? | ||
* | * Is it instead a 'System' disease considering the masticatory System in its entirety consisting of subsets such as receptors, peripheral and central nervous tissue, maxillary bones, teeth, tongue, skin, etc.,? | ||
* | *Or, is it an 'organ' disease involving in this specific case the temporomandibular joint (TMJ)? | ||
These brief notes demonstrate how the inaccuracies and peculiarities of natural language enter medicine through its syntactic and semantically underdeveloped form. We should deal with some of these peculiarities with concrete clinical examples. | |||
<center> | <center> | ||
== | ==Clinical approach== | ||
( | (hover over the images) | ||
</center> | </center> | ||
<center><gallery widths="350" heights="282" perrow="2" mode="slideshow"> | <center><gallery widths="350" heights="282" perrow="2" mode="slideshow"> | ||
File:Spasmo emimasticatorio.jpg|''' | File:Spasmo emimasticatorio.jpg|'''Figure 1:''' Patient reporting 'orofacial pain' in the right hemilateral face | ||
File:Spasmo emimasticatorio ATM.jpg|''' | File:Spasmo emimasticatorio ATM.jpg|'''Figure 2:''' Patient’s TMJ stratigraphy showing signs of condylar flattening and osteophyte | ||
File:Atm1 sclerodermia.jpg|''' | File:Atm1 sclerodermia.jpg|'''Figure 3:''' Computed tomography of the TMJ which confirms the stratigraphy in figure 2 | ||
</gallery></center> | </gallery></center> | ||
==What does a medical term mean== | |||
Let us ask ourselves what "meaning" means. | |||
The Cambridge Dictionary says that "''The meaning of something is what it expresses or represents''"<ref>[https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/meaning Cambridge Dictionary online]</ref>. As simple as it may seem, the notion of "meaning" is rather generic and vague; there is still no commonly accepted answer to the question 'what does "meaning" mean?' Controversial theories of meaning have been advanced, and each has its advantages and shortcomings<ref>{{cita libro | |||
| autore = Blouw P | | autore = Blouw P | ||
| autore2 = Eliasmith C | | autore2 = Eliasmith C | ||
| Line 153: | Line 146: | ||
}}</ref>. | }}</ref>. | ||
Traditionally, a term is displayed as a linguistic label meaning an object in a world, concrete or abstract. The term is thought to stand in the language as a representative for that object, e.g. ‘apple’ for the famous fruit. This term ‘apple’ will have the same meaning for the American child, the European adult or the Chinese elder, while the meaning ‘Orofacial Pain’ will have an intention for the neurologist, one for the dentist, and its own essence the unfortunate Mary Poppins. | |||
Such expressions do not derive their meaning from representing something in the world out there, but how they relate to other terms within one’s world or context. | |||
The meaning of ''pain'' for Mary Poppins is concerning what it can mean to her, to her conscience, and not about the external world: actually, asking the patient to attribute a numerical value to his pain, say from 0 to 10, makes no sense, has no meaning, because there isn't any internal normalizing reference to one's world or context. <br> | |||
The same is true for the neurologist who will give sense to the term 'pain in the right half face' solely in his/her context based on synapses, axons, ion channels, action potentials, neuropeptides etc.<br> | |||
The dentist will do the same, based on his/her context consisting mainly of teeth, temporomandibular joint, masticatory muscles, occlusion etc. | |||
Concepts should not be neglected when it comes to '<nowiki/>'''differential diagnosis'''', because they could be sources of clinical errors. For this reason, we should reflect on the modern philosophy of 'Meaning', which began with Gottlob Frege<ref>[[:wikipedia:Gottlob_Frege|Wikipedia entry]]</ref>, as a compound of "extension" and "intention" of a term that expresses a concept. | |||
The concept has its '''extension''' (it includes all beings with the same quality) and 'understanding' (a complex of markers referred to the idea). For example, the concept of ''pain'' refers to many human beings, but it is more generic (great extension, but little understanding). If we consider the pain in patients who receive, for example, dental implants, in patients with ongoing inflammatory dental pulpitis and patients with neuropathic pain (atypical odontalgia)<ref>{{cita libro | |||
| autore = Porporatti AL | | autore = Porporatti AL | ||
| autore2 = Bonjardim LR | | autore2 = Bonjardim LR | ||
| Line 178: | Line 171: | ||
| oaf = <!-- qualsiasi valore --> | | oaf = <!-- qualsiasi valore --> | ||
| PMID = 28118417 | | PMID = 28118417 | ||
}}</ref | }}</ref> we'll have: | ||
# | #Increases in the mechanical perception threshold and the sensory perception threshold related to C fibres' activation. | ||
# | #Somatosensory abnormalities such as allodynia, reduced mechanical perception and impaired pain modulation in patients with atypical odontalgia. | ||
# | #No somatosensory alteration after implant insertion, although patients report mild pain in the treated region. | ||
On ‘pain’ in general we can say that it has a wide extension and minimal understanding, but if we consider the type of pain mentioned above, for example in patients who receive dental implants, in patients with ongoing inflammatory dental pulpitis and in patients with neuropathic pain (atypical odontalgia), it becomes evident that the greater the understanding is, the smaller the extension. | |||
The '''intension''' of a concept, on the other hand, is a set of aspects that distinguish it from the others. These are the characteristics that differentiate the generic term of "pain", which by articulating the intension of a concept automatically reduces its extension. Obviously, though, various generality scales can descend from a concept depending on which aspect of its intension is articulated. That is why we could conceptually distinguish pain in the TMJ from neuropathic pain. | |||
---- | ---- | ||
We can conveniently say, therefore, that the meaning of a term ''<math>\mathrm{S}</math>'' with respect to a particular language <math>\mathrm{l}</math> is an ordered couple, consisting of extension and intension, in a world that we will now call ‘context’. | |||
Precisely with reference to the '''context''' we must point out that: | |||
# | #In the dental ‘context’, the term ''pain in the right half face'' represents a relatively large extension (so that it can be classified in an area that includes the ‘TMDs’) and an intension composed of a series of clinical characteristics perhaps supported by a series of instrumental radiological investigations, EMG, axiographic etc. | ||
# | #In the neurological ‘context’, however, the term ''pain in the right half face'' represents a relatively wide ‘<sub>n</sub>OP’ extension and an intension composed of a series of clinical features, perhaps supported by a series of instrumental radiological investigations, EMG, somatosensory evoked potentials, etc. | ||
This brief but essential argument allows us to ascertain how the linguistic expression of a medical language is vulnerable for a series of reasons; among these, please note semantic incompleteness, as well as how a meaning can be so different in different contexts that the terms ‘<sub>n</sub>OP’ or ' TMDs' become ambiguous with these premises<ref>{{cita libro | |||
| autore = Jääskeläinen SK | | autore = Jääskeläinen SK | ||
| titolo = Differential Diagnosis of Chronic Neuropathic Orofacial Pain: Role of Clinical Neurophysiology | | titolo = Differential Diagnosis of Chronic Neuropathic Orofacial Pain: Role of Clinical Neurophysiology | ||
| Line 209: | Line 202: | ||
}}</ref>. | }}</ref>. | ||
== | ==Ambiguity and Vagueness== | ||
As said, beyond the language used, the meaning of a medical term also depends on the contexts from which it originates, and this can generate ‘ambiguity’ or ‘polysemy’ of the terms. A term is called ambiguous or polysemic if it has more than one meaning. Ambiguity and vagueness have been the subject of considerable attention in linguistics and philosophy<ref>{{cita libro | |||
| autore = Schick F | | autore = Schick F | ||
| titolo = Ambiguity and Logic | | titolo = Ambiguity and Logic | ||
| Line 254: | Line 247: | ||
| oaf = <!-- qualsiasi valore --> | | oaf = <!-- qualsiasi valore --> | ||
| PMID = | | PMID = | ||
}}</ref>; | }}</ref>; but despite the significant detrimental effect of ambiguity and vagueness on adherence to and implementation of the Clinical Pratice Guideline (CPG)<ref>{{cita libro | ||
| autore = Codish S | | autore = Codish S | ||
| autore2 = Shiffman RN | | autore2 = Shiffman RN | ||
| Line 270: | Line 263: | ||
| LCCN = | | LCCN = | ||
| OCLC = | | OCLC = | ||
}}</ref>, | }}</ref>, these concepts have not been explored and differentiated yet in a medical context. | ||
Doctors' interpretation of vague terms varies greatly<ref>{{cita libro | |||
| autore = Kong A | | autore = Kong A | ||
| autore2 = Barnett GO | | autore2 = Barnett GO | ||
| Line 290: | Line 283: | ||
| LCCN = | | LCCN = | ||
| OCLC = | | OCLC = | ||
}}</ref>, | }}</ref>, leading to a reduced grip and q greater practice variation from CPGs. Ambiguity is classified into syntactic, semantic and pragmatic types<ref>{{cita libro | ||
| autore = Bemmel J | | autore = Bemmel J | ||
| autore2 = Musen MA | | autore2 = Musen MA | ||
| Line 306: | Line 299: | ||
}}</ref>. | }}</ref>. | ||
As previously described, the meaning of a simple linguistic expression referred to by Mary Poppins has at least three different meanings in three different contexts. The ambiguity and vagueness in the linguistic expression behind the term ‘orofacial pain’, which at the same time could be a source of diagnostic errors, mainly concerns the inefficiency of the medical language logic in decrypting the machine message that the System sends in real time to the exterior. | |||
Let's spend a minute trying to describe this interesting topic of '''encrypted machine language''' from which the following chapters will be articulated. | |||
Orofacial pain does not have a meaning in its most genuine lexical form, but rather in what it means in the context in which it exists: a whole series of domains referred to and generated by it such as clinical signs, related symptoms and interactions with other neuromotor, trigeminal, dental districts, etc. ''This machine language does not correspond to verbal language, but to an encrypted language built on its own alphabet'', that generates the message to be converted into verbal (natural) language. Now the problem shifts to the ''language logic used to decrypt the code''. In order to describe this concept in an understandable way, let’s contemplate a series of examples. | |||
We are supposing that the unfortunate Mary Poppins is suffering from ‘orofacial pain’, and she is representing the following to the healthcare professionals to whom she relates: | |||
{{q2|<!--93-->Doc, 10 years ago I started with a widespread discomfort in the jaw, including episodes of bruxism; these worsened so much that I was accusing ‘diffuse facial pain’, in particular in the area of the right ‘TMJ’ with noises in the movements mandibular.<br><!--94-->During this period, ‘vesicular lesions’ formed on my skin, which were more evident in the right half of my face.<br>In this period, however, the pain became more intense and intermittent|}} | {{q2|<!--93-->Doc, 10 years ago I started with a widespread discomfort in the jaw, including episodes of bruxism; these worsened so much that I was accusing ‘diffuse facial pain’, in particular in the area of the right ‘TMJ’ with noises in the movements mandibular.<br><!--94-->During this period, ‘vesicular lesions’ formed on my skin, which were more evident in the right half of my face.<br>In this period, however, the pain became more intense and intermittent|}} | ||
The healthcare worker, who may be a dermatologist, a dentist or a neurologist, picks up some verbal messages in Mary Poppins’ dialogue, such as ‘diffuse facial pain’ or ‘TMJ’ or ‘vescicular lesion’, and establishes a series of hypothetical diagnostic conclusions that have nothing to do with the encrypted language. | |||
Here, however, we should abandon a little the acquired patterns and opinions to better follow the concept of ‘encrypted language’. Let's suppose, therefore, that the System is generating and sending the following encrypted message, for instance: '''Ephaptic'''. | |||
Now, what has ‘Ephaptic’ to do with <sub>n</sub>OP or TMDs? | |||
Nothing and everything, as we will better verify at the end of the chapters about the logic of medical language; but by now we will dedicate some time to the concepts of ''encryption'' and ''decryption''. We have perhaps heard about them in spy movies or in information security, but they are important in medicine too, you'll see. | |||
==Encryption== | |||
Let us continue with our example: | |||
Let us take a common encryption and decryption platform. In the following example we will report the results of an Italian platform but we can choose any platform because the results conceptually do not change: | |||
You type your message in plain text, the machine converts it into something unreadable, but anyone knowing the "code" will be able to understand it. | |||
Let us suppose, then, that the same happens when the brain sends a message in its own machine language, made up of wave trains, packets of ionic fields and so on; and that carries a message with it to decrypt the ‘Ephaptic’ code. | |||
This message from the Central Nervous System must first be transduced into verbal language, to allow the patient to give meaning to the linguistic expression and the doctor to interpret the verbal message. In this way, however, the machine message is polluted by the linguistic expression: both by the patient, who is unable to convert the encrypted message with the exact meaning (epistemic vagueness), and by the doctor, because he/she is conditioned by the specific context of his/her specialization. | |||
The patient, actually, by reporting a symptomatology of orofacial pain in the region of the temporoandibular joint, virtually combines the set of ''extension'' and ''intention'' into a diagnostic concept that allows the dentist to formulate the diagnosis of orofacial pain from temporomandibular disorders. (TMDs). | |||
Very often the message remains encrypted at least until the system is damaged to such an extent that clinical signs and symptoms emerge so striking that, obviously, they facilitate the diagnosis. | |||
Understanding how the encryption works is quite simple (go to decryption platform chooses and to try it out): | |||
#choose an encryption key among those selected; | |||
#type a word; | |||
#get a code corresponding to the chosen key and the typed word. | |||
For example, if we insert the word ‘Ephaptic’ in the platform encryption system, we will have an encrypted code in the three different contexts (patient, dentist and neurologist) which correspond to the three different algorithmic keys indicated by the program, for instance: the A key corresponds to the patient's algorithm, the B key to the dental context and the C key to the neurological context. | |||
In the case of the patient, for example, writing <code>Ephaptic</code> and using the A key, the "machine" will give us back a code like | |||
| Line 358: | Line 359: | ||
The key can be defined as "Real context". | |||
{{ | {{q2|<!--117-->Why do you say that the patient's "key" is defined as the REAL one?|<!--118-->difficult answer, but please observe the Gate Control phenomenon and you will understand}} | ||
<!--119-->First of all: <!--120-->Only the patient is unconsciously aware of the disease that afflicts his own system, but he does not have the ability to transduce the signal from the machine language to the verbal language. The same procedure occurs in 'Systems Control Theory', in which a dynamic control procedure called ‘State Observer’ is designed to estimate the state of the system from output measurements. Matter of fact, in the control theory, observability is a measure of how much the internal state of a system can be deduced from the knowledge of its external outputs<ref>[[wikipedia:Observability|Osservability]] </ref>. <!--121-->While in the case of a biological system a ‘Stochastic Observability’ of linear dynamic systemsis preferred<ref>{{cita libro | <!--119-->First of all: <!--120-->Only the patient is unconsciously aware of the disease that afflicts his own system, but he does not have the ability to transduce the signal from the machine language to the verbal language. The same procedure occurs in 'Systems Control Theory', in which a dynamic control procedure called ‘State Observer’ is designed to estimate the state of the system from output measurements. Matter of fact, in the control theory, observability is a measure of how much the internal state of a system can be deduced from the knowledge of its external outputs<ref>[[wikipedia:Observability|Osservability]] </ref>. <!--121-->While in the case of a biological system a ‘Stochastic Observability’ of linear dynamic systemsis preferred<ref>{{cita libro | ||
| Line 493: | Line 494: | ||
}}</ref>. | }}</ref>. | ||
==<!--130-->Decryption== | ==<!--130-->Decryption == | ||
<!--131-->Now, assuming that the machine language and the assembler code are well structured, we insert the encrypted message from the Mary Poppins System in the 'Mouth of Truth‘<ref>[[:wikipedia:Bocca_della_Verità|<!--132-->Mouth of truth in Wikipedia]]</ | <!--131-->Now, assuming that the machine language and the assembler code are well structured, we insert the encrypted message from the Mary Poppins System in the 'Mouth of Truth‘<ref>[[:wikipedia:Bocca_della_Verità|<!--132-->Mouth of truth in Wikipedia]]</ref>: | ||
<math>133755457655037A </math> | <math>133755457655037A </math> | ||
| Line 515: | Line 516: | ||
<!--137-->This means that medical language logics mainly built on an extension of verbal language, are not very efficient in being quick and detailed in diagnostics, especially the differential one. This is because the distortion due to the ambiguity and semantic vagueness of the linguistic expression, called ‘vagueness epistemic’ or ‘epistemic uncertainty’, or better ‘uncertain knowledge’, forcibly directs the diagnosis towards the '''specialist reference context''' and not on the exact and real one. | <!--137-->This means that medical language logics mainly built on an extension of verbal language, are not very efficient in being quick and detailed in diagnostics, especially the differential one. This is because the distortion due to the ambiguity and semantic vagueness of the linguistic expression, called ‘vagueness epistemic’ or ‘epistemic uncertainty’, or better ‘uncertain knowledge’, forcibly directs the diagnosis towards the '''specialist reference context''' and not on the exact and real one. | ||
{{ | {{q2|<!--138-->Why, then, are we relatively successful in diagnostics? |<!--139-->An entire separate encyclopedia would be needed to answer to this question, but without going too far, let's try to discuss the reasons.}} | ||
<!--140-->Basic diagnostic intuition is a quick, non-analytical and unconscious way of reasoning. <!--141-->A small body of evidence indicates the ubiquity of intuition and its usefulness in generating diagnostic hypotheses and ascertaining the severity of the disease. Little is known about how experienced doctors understand this phenomenon, and about how they work with it in clinical practice. <!--142-->Most reports of the physician’s diagnostic intuition have linked this phenomenon to non-analytical reasoning and have emphasized the importance of experience in developing a reliable sense of intuition that can be used to effectively engage analytical reasoning in order to evaluate the clinical evidence. <!--143-->In a recent study, the authors conclude that clinicians perceive clinical intuition as useful for correcting and advancing diagnoses of both common and rare conditions<ref>{{cite book | <!--140-->Basic diagnostic intuition is a quick, non-analytical and unconscious way of reasoning. <!--141-->A small body of evidence indicates the ubiquity of intuition and its usefulness in generating diagnostic hypotheses and ascertaining the severity of the disease. Little is known about how experienced doctors understand this phenomenon, and about how they work with it in clinical practice. <!--142-->Most reports of the physician’s diagnostic intuition have linked this phenomenon to non-analytical reasoning and have emphasized the importance of experience in developing a reliable sense of intuition that can be used to effectively engage analytical reasoning in order to evaluate the clinical evidence. <!--143-->In a recent study, the authors conclude that clinicians perceive clinical intuition as useful for correcting and advancing diagnoses of both common and rare conditions<ref>{{cite book | ||
| Line 550: | Line 551: | ||
<!--144-->Therefore, there is a need for: | <!--144-->Therefore, there is a need for: | ||
{{ | {{q2|<!--145-->A System Logic that integrates the sequence of the machine language code|<!--146-->true! we'll get there with a little patience}} | ||
==<!--147-->Final Considerations== | ==<!--147-->Final Considerations== | ||
| Line 608: | Line 609: | ||
#<!--155-->Abduction or the generation of hypotheses | #<!--155-->Abduction or the generation of hypotheses | ||
#<!--156-->Deduction or drawing of consequences from hypotheses; <!--157-->and | #<!--156-->Deduction or drawing of consequences from hypotheses; <!--157-->and | ||
#<!--158-->Induction or hypothesis testing. | # <!--158-->Induction or hypothesis testing. | ||
<!--159-->In the final part of the study conducted by Donald E Stanley and Daniel G Campos, the Peircean logic is considered as an aid to guaranteeing the effectiveness of the diagnostic passage from populations to individuals. <!--160-->A diagnosis focuses on the individual signs and symptoms of a disease. <!--161-->This manifestation cannot be extrapolated from the general population, except for a very broad experiential sense, and it is this sense of experience that provides clinical insight, strengthens the instinct to interpret perceptions, and grounds the competence that allows us to act. <!--162-->We acquire basic knowledge and validate experience in order to transfer our observations into the diagnosis. | <!--159-->In the final part of the study conducted by Donald E Stanley and Daniel G Campos, the Peircean logic is considered as an aid to guaranteeing the effectiveness of the diagnostic passage from populations to individuals. <!--160-->A diagnosis focuses on the individual signs and symptoms of a disease. <!--161-->This manifestation cannot be extrapolated from the general population, except for a very broad experiential sense, and it is this sense of experience that provides clinical insight, strengthens the instinct to interpret perceptions, and grounds the competence that allows us to act. <!--162-->We acquire basic knowledge and validate experience in order to transfer our observations into the diagnosis. | ||
| Line 639: | Line 640: | ||
<!--172-->Therefore, it is necessary to specify that semeiotics and/or the specific value of clinical analysis are not being criticized because these procedures have been extraordinarily innovative in the diagnostics of all time. <!--173-->In the age in which we live, however, it will be due to the change in human life expectancy or the social acceleration that we are experiencing, ‘time’ has become a conditioning factor, not intended as the passing of minutes but essentially as bearer of information. | <!--172-->Therefore, it is necessary to specify that semeiotics and/or the specific value of clinical analysis are not being criticized because these procedures have been extraordinarily innovative in the diagnostics of all time. <!--173-->In the age in which we live, however, it will be due to the change in human life expectancy or the social acceleration that we are experiencing, ‘time’ has become a conditioning factor, not intended as the passing of minutes but essentially as bearer of information. | ||
:''<!--174-->In this sense, the type of medical language described above, based on the symptom and on the clinical sign, is unable to anticipate the disease, not because there is no know-how, technology, innovation, etc., but because the right value is not given to the information carried over time'' | :''<!--174-->In this sense, the type of medical language described above, based on the symptom and on the clinical sign, is unable to anticipate the disease, not because there is no know-how, technology, innovation, etc., but because the right value is not given to the information carried over time'' | ||
<!--175-->This is not the responsibility of the health worker, nor of the Health Service and nor of the political-industrial class because each of these actors does what it can do with the resources and preparation of the socio-epochal context in which it lives. | <!--175-->This is not the responsibility of the health worker, nor of the Health Service and nor of the political-industrial class because each of these actors does what it can do with the resources and preparation of the socio-epochal context in which it lives. | ||
| Line 649: | Line 650: | ||
<!--179-->We are aware that our Linux Sapiens is perplexed and wondering: | <!--179-->We are aware that our Linux Sapiens is perplexed and wondering: | ||
{{ | {{q2|... <!--180-->could the logic of Classical language help us to solve the poor Mary Poppins' dilemma?|<!--181-->You will see that much of medical thinking is based on [[The logic of classical language|the logic of Classical language]] but there are limits}} | ||