Editor, Editors, USER, admin, Bureaucrats, Check users, dev, editor, founder, Interface administrators, oversight, Suppressors, Administrators, translator
10,785
edits
Difference between revisions of "Introduction"
no edit summary
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
{{main menu}} | {{main menu}} | ||
{{ArtBy|autore=Gianni Frisardi}} | |||
==Abstract== | |||
==Abstract == | |||
[[File:Occlusal Centric view in open and cross bite patient.jpg|350x350px|left]]The introduction of Masticationpedia offers a deep and complex analysis on themes that span the evolution of science, with a particular focus on medicine and dentistry. It begins by examining the epistemological transformation of science through the lens of Kuhn's paradigms, emphasizing the importance of paradigmatic changes that science, including dentistry, has experienced and continues to experience. The document outlines the stages of paradigmatic change proposed by Kuhn, applying them to the field of dentistry, where it highlights a paradigmatic crisis that calls for an evolution towards new paradigms, especially in masticatory rehabilitation. The discussion extends to epistemology, considering how science acquires knowledge and addresses the issue of the verifiability of scientific theories. A critical emphasis is placed on the use and interpretation of the P value in scientific statistics, highlighting the ongoing debate about its reliability as an indicator. | [[File:Occlusal Centric view in open and cross bite patient.jpg|350x350px|left]]The introduction of Masticationpedia offers a deep and complex analysis on themes that span the evolution of science, with a particular focus on medicine and dentistry. It begins by examining the epistemological transformation of science through the lens of Kuhn's paradigms, emphasizing the importance of paradigmatic changes that science, including dentistry, has experienced and continues to experience. The document outlines the stages of paradigmatic change proposed by Kuhn, applying them to the field of dentistry, where it highlights a paradigmatic crisis that calls for an evolution towards new paradigms, especially in masticatory rehabilitation. The discussion extends to epistemology, considering how science acquires knowledge and addresses the issue of the verifiability of scientific theories. A critical emphasis is placed on the use and interpretation of the P value in scientific statistics, highlighting the ongoing debate about its reliability as an indicator. | ||
| Line 11: | Line 9: | ||
This approach represents an invitation to overcome the limits of traditional dental conventions, proposing a model of understanding and treatment of masticatory disorders that is truly interdisciplinary, based on principles of open and inclusive science, oriented towards the acceptance of uncertainty, and the holistic evaluation of the patient. | This approach represents an invitation to overcome the limits of traditional dental conventions, proposing a model of understanding and treatment of masticatory disorders that is truly interdisciplinary, based on principles of open and inclusive science, oriented towards the acceptance of uncertainty, and the holistic evaluation of the patient. | ||
---- | ---- | ||
==Ab ovo<ref>Latin for 'since the very beginning'</ref>== | ==Ab ovo<ref>Latin for 'since the very beginning'</ref>== | ||
| Line 85: | Line 83: | ||
Taking on the role of a skilled problem solver, the scientist is engaged in resolving these anomalies. These moments of discontinuity, or scientific revolutions, occur when the existing paradigm can no longer adequately interpret new anomalies, thereby pushing the scientific community towards the exploration and eventual adoption of new paradigms that better align with emerging observations. | Taking on the role of a skilled problem solver, the scientist is engaged in resolving these anomalies. These moments of discontinuity, or scientific revolutions, occur when the existing paradigm can no longer adequately interpret new anomalies, thereby pushing the scientific community towards the exploration and eventual adoption of new paradigms that better align with emerging observations. | ||
==== '''Kuhn's phases in Dentistry''' ==== | ===='''Kuhn's phases in Dentistry'''==== | ||
Thomas Kuhn identifies in the evolution of a scientific paradigm five distinct phases, a process that holds crucial importance for Masticationpedia. To stay in line with the project's objectives, we will focus on the description of the three most significant phases, as outlined in the book's index.[[File:The phases of paradigm change according to Thomas Kuhn.jpg|right|thumb|The phases of paradigm change according to Thomas Kuhn]] | Thomas Kuhn identifies in the evolution of a scientific paradigm five distinct phases, a process that holds crucial importance for Masticationpedia. To stay in line with the project's objectives, we will focus on the description of the three most significant phases, as outlined in the book's index.[[File:The phases of paradigm change according to Thomas Kuhn.jpg|right|thumb|The phases of paradigm change according to Thomas Kuhn]] | ||
| Line 111: | Line 109: | ||
---- | ---- | ||
== Epistemology== | ==Epistemology== | ||
<center> | <center> | ||
{| | {| | ||
|- | |- | ||
| align="right" width="250" |<small>''The black swan symbolizes one of the historical problems of epistemology: if all the swans we have seen so far are white, can we decide that all the swans are white?<br>Really?''</small> | | align="right" width="250" |<small>''The black swan symbolizes one of the historical problems of epistemology: if all the swans we have seen so far are white, can we decide that all the swans are white?<br>Really?''</small> | ||
| align="center" |[[File:Black_Swan_(Cygnus_atratus)_RWD.jpg|175px|center]] | | align="center" |[[File:Black_Swan_(Cygnus_atratus)_RWD.jpg|175px|center]] | ||
|- | |- | ||
| | | | ||
| Line 262: | Line 260: | ||
|- | |- | ||
| | | | ||
* '''Interdisciplinarity''': <br>In the field of science policy, it is universally recognized that solving science-based problems requires an interdisciplinary research approach (IDR), as highlighted by the European Union's Horizon 2020 project.<ref>European Union, ''[https://ec.europa.eu/programmes/horizon2020/en/h2020-section/societal-challenges Horizon 2020]''</ref> Recent studies have explored the reasons for the cognitive and epistemic difficulties that researchers encounter in conducting IDR. One identified cause is the decline of philosophical interest towards the epistemology of IDR, attributed to the dominant "Physical Paradigm of Science." This paradigm limits the recognition of significant developments in IDR, both in the context of the philosophy of science and in the practice of research itself. In response, an alternative philosophical paradigm has been proposed, called the "Engineering Paradigm of Science," which offers alternative philosophical perspectives on fundamental aspects such as the purpose of science, the nature of knowledge, the epistemic and pragmatic criteria for the acceptance of knowledge, and the role of technological tools. Consequently, it highlights the need for researchers to make use of metacognitive support structures, called metacognitive scaffolds, to facilitate the analysis and reconstruction of the processes by which knowledge is constructed across different disciplines. In the context of IDR, such metacognitive scaffolds are essential for promoting effective communication between disciplines, allowing scholars to analyze and articulate how each discipline contributes to the construction of knowledge.<ref name=":0">{{cita libro | *'''Interdisciplinarity''': <br>In the field of science policy, it is universally recognized that solving science-based problems requires an interdisciplinary research approach (IDR), as highlighted by the European Union's Horizon 2020 project.<ref>European Union, ''[https://ec.europa.eu/programmes/horizon2020/en/h2020-section/societal-challenges Horizon 2020]''</ref> Recent studies have explored the reasons for the cognitive and epistemic difficulties that researchers encounter in conducting IDR. One identified cause is the decline of philosophical interest towards the epistemology of IDR, attributed to the dominant "Physical Paradigm of Science." This paradigm limits the recognition of significant developments in IDR, both in the context of the philosophy of science and in the practice of research itself. In response, an alternative philosophical paradigm has been proposed, called the "Engineering Paradigm of Science," which offers alternative philosophical perspectives on fundamental aspects such as the purpose of science, the nature of knowledge, the epistemic and pragmatic criteria for the acceptance of knowledge, and the role of technological tools. Consequently, it highlights the need for researchers to make use of metacognitive support structures, called metacognitive scaffolds, to facilitate the analysis and reconstruction of the processes by which knowledge is constructed across different disciplines. In the context of IDR, such metacognitive scaffolds are essential for promoting effective communication between disciplines, allowing scholars to analyze and articulate how each discipline contributes to the construction of knowledge.<ref name=":0">{{cita libro | ||
| autore = Boon M | | autore = Boon M | ||
| autore2 = Van Baalen S | | autore2 = Van Baalen S | ||
| Line 292: | Line 290: | ||
|} | |} | ||
==Anomaly ''vs.'' Interdisciplinarity == | ==Anomaly ''vs.'' Interdisciplinarity== | ||
A superficial view might suggest that the epistemic evolution of science is marked by an apparent opposition between the aspects of disciplinarity, highlighted by the "Physics Paradigm of Science" (which sheds light on anomalies), and those of interdisciplinarity, represented by the "Engineering Paradigm of Science" (and the related concept of metacognitive scaffold). However, as will be explored in this chapter, these two perspectives are not actually in conflict; on the contrary, they prove to be complementary, as both contribute to the generation of a "Paradigmatic Innovation" without any form of conflict. | A superficial view might suggest that the epistemic evolution of science is marked by an apparent opposition between the aspects of disciplinarity, highlighted by the "Physics Paradigm of Science" (which sheds light on anomalies), and those of interdisciplinarity, represented by the "Engineering Paradigm of Science" (and the related concept of metacognitive scaffold). However, as will be explored in this chapter, these two perspectives are not actually in conflict; on the contrary, they prove to be complementary, as both contribute to the generation of a "Paradigmatic Innovation" without any form of conflict. | ||
| Line 334: | Line 332: | ||
Before proceeding, it might be appropriate to observe a very concrete and significant case. | Before proceeding, it might be appropriate to observe a very concrete and significant case. | ||
==Malocclusion== | == Malocclusion== | ||
"Malocclusion" derives from the Latin "malum," meaning "bad" or "wrong," and literally refers to an improper closure of the teeth.<ref>The creation of the term is generally attributed to [[:wpen:Edward Angle|Edward Angle]], considered the father of modern orthodontics, who coined it as a specification of ''occlusion'' to signal the incorrect opposition in closing of the lower teeth and upper, especially the first molar; see {{cita libro | "Malocclusion" derives from the Latin "malum," meaning "bad" or "wrong," and literally refers to an improper closure of the teeth.<ref>The creation of the term is generally attributed to [[:wpen:Edward Angle|Edward Angle]], considered the father of modern orthodontics, who coined it as a specification of ''occlusion'' to signal the incorrect opposition in closing of the lower teeth and upper, especially the first molar; see {{cita libro | ||
| Line 502: | Line 500: | ||
<blockquote>''Occlusal Dismorphisms and Not Malocclusion ......which, as we will see shortly, is an entirely different matter.''</blockquote> | <blockquote>''Occlusal Dismorphisms and Not Malocclusion ......which, as we will see shortly, is an entirely different matter.''</blockquote> | ||
== Conclusion== | ==Conclusion== | ||
Before proceeding with any conclusion, it is crucial to clarify some fundamental concepts that will be explored in more detail in specific chapters of Masticationpedia. | Before proceeding with any conclusion, it is crucial to clarify some fundamental concepts that will be explored in more detail in specific chapters of Masticationpedia. | ||
| Line 526: | Line 524: | ||
: | : | ||
:{{q2|The proposition to consider the masticatory system as a "Complex System" does not imply the denial of existing rehabilitative therapies, such as prosthetic, orthodontic, and orthognathic treatments aimed at correcting masticatory dysfunctions. On the contrary, this innovative approach aims to reintegrate and enrich medical knowledge in rehabilitative dental disciplines, providing an alternative perspective to the scientific reductionism that tends to interpret biological phenomena in an overly deterministic manner.|}}Adopting a perspective that transcends the boundaries of individual specializations, as highlighted by the importance of interdisciplinarity, is crucial for enriching diagnostic and therapeutic models in dentistry. This approach is exemplified in the clinical case of a patient treated with the OrthoNeuroGnathodontic methodology, which provides an integrated overview of the masticatory system, combining aesthetic and functional-neurophysiological aspects. This interdisciplinary model aims to achieve "Occlusal Stability" and prevent "Relapses," particularly relevant in orthodontic and orthognathic treatments.<ref>Essam Ahmed Al-Moraissi, Larry M Wolford. Is Counterclockwise Rotation of the Maxillomandibular Complex Stable Compared With Clockwise Rotation in the Correction of Dentofacial Deformities? A Systematic Review and Meta-AnalysisJ Oral Maxillofac Surg.. 2016 Oct;74(10):2066.e1-2066.e12.doi: 10.1016/j.joms.2016.06.001. Epub 2016 Jun 11. | :{{q2|The proposition to consider the masticatory system as a "Complex System" does not imply the denial of existing rehabilitative therapies, such as prosthetic, orthodontic, and orthognathic treatments aimed at correcting masticatory dysfunctions. On the contrary, this innovative approach aims to reintegrate and enrich medical knowledge in rehabilitative dental disciplines, providing an alternative perspective to the scientific reductionism that tends to interpret biological phenomena in an overly deterministic manner.|}}Adopting a perspective that transcends the boundaries of individual specializations, as highlighted by the importance of interdisciplinarity, is crucial for enriching diagnostic and therapeutic models in dentistry. This approach is exemplified in the clinical case of a patient treated with the OrthoNeuroGnathodontic methodology, which provides an integrated overview of the masticatory system, combining aesthetic and functional-neurophysiological aspects. This interdisciplinary model aims to achieve "Occlusal Stability" and prevent "Relapses," particularly relevant in orthodontic and orthognathic treatments.<ref>Essam Ahmed Al-Moraissi, Larry M Wolford. Is Counterclockwise Rotation of the Maxillomandibular Complex Stable Compared With Clockwise Rotation in the Correction of Dentofacial Deformities? A Systematic Review and Meta-AnalysisJ Oral Maxillofac Surg.. 2016 Oct;74(10):2066.e1-2066.e12.doi: 10.1016/j.joms.2016.06.001. Epub 2016 Jun 11. | ||
</ref><ref>J Hoffmannová, R Foltán, M Vlk, K Klíma, G Pavlíková, O Bulik. Factors affecting the stability of bilateral sagittal split osteotomy of a mandible.Prague Med Rep. 2008;109(4):286-97. | </ref><ref>J Hoffmannová, R Foltán, M Vlk, K Klíma, G Pavlíková, O Bulik. Factors affecting the stability of bilateral sagittal split osteotomy of a mandible.Prague Med Rep. 2008;109(4):286-97. | ||
</ref> This perspective does not aim to eliminate existing rehabilitative practices but, on the contrary, seeks to enrich and restore value to dental rehabilitative disciplines, while offering an alternative to the reductionistic view that often dominates the interpretation of biological phenomena. In this context, an "Extraordinary Science" is introduced, which leverages interdisciplinarity to expand the boundaries of medical knowledge and practice. In the meantime, let us take a reflective pause thanks to a provocative question from our curious companion, Linus Sapiens, the yellow figure positioned on the left. This allegorical interaction invites us to consider the complexity of the masticatory system with a sense of wonder and curiosity, emphasizing the importance of remaining open to new perspectives and innovative solutions in the field of dentistry. | </ref> This perspective does not aim to eliminate existing rehabilitative practices but, on the contrary, seeks to enrich and restore value to dental rehabilitative disciplines, while offering an alternative to the reductionistic view that often dominates the interpretation of biological phenomena. In this context, an "Extraordinary Science" is introduced, which leverages interdisciplinarity to expand the boundaries of medical knowledge and practice. In the meantime, let us take a reflective pause thanks to a provocative question from our curious companion, Linus Sapiens, the yellow figure positioned on the left. This allegorical interaction invites us to consider the complexity of the masticatory system with a sense of wonder and curiosity, emphasizing the importance of remaining open to new perspectives and innovative solutions in the field of dentistry. | ||