“不要想斑马”:临床教育中的不确定性、解释和悖论。

K Hunter
{"title":"“不要想斑马”:临床教育中的不确定性、解释和悖论。","authors":"K Hunter","doi":"10.1007/BF00489447","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Working retrospectively in an uncertain field of knowledge, physicians are engaged in an interpretive practice that is guided by counterweighted, competing, sometimes paradoxical maxims. \"When you hear hoofbeats, don't think zebras,\" is the chief of these, the epitome of medicine's practical wisdom, its hermeneutic rule. The accumulated and contradictory wisdom distilled in clinical maxims arises necessarily from the case-based nature of medical practice and the narrative rationality that good practice requires. That these maxims all have their opposites enforces in students and physicians a practical skepticism that encourages them to question their expectations, interrupt patterns, and adjust to new developments as a case unfolds. Yet medicine resolutely ignores both the maxims and the tension between the practical reasoning they represent and the claim that medicine is a science. Indeed, resolute epistemological naivete is part of medicine's accommodation to uncertainty; counterweighted, competing, apparently paradoxical (but always situational) rules enable physicians simultaneously to express and to ignore the practical reason that characterizes their practice.</p>","PeriodicalId":77444,"journal":{"name":"Theoretical medicine","volume":"17 3","pages":"225-41"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"1996-09-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1007/BF00489447","citationCount":"68","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"\\\"Don't think zebras\\\": uncertainty, interpretation, and the place of paradox in clinical education.\",\"authors\":\"K Hunter\",\"doi\":\"10.1007/BF00489447\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>Working retrospectively in an uncertain field of knowledge, physicians are engaged in an interpretive practice that is guided by counterweighted, competing, sometimes paradoxical maxims. \\\"When you hear hoofbeats, don't think zebras,\\\" is the chief of these, the epitome of medicine's practical wisdom, its hermeneutic rule. The accumulated and contradictory wisdom distilled in clinical maxims arises necessarily from the case-based nature of medical practice and the narrative rationality that good practice requires. That these maxims all have their opposites enforces in students and physicians a practical skepticism that encourages them to question their expectations, interrupt patterns, and adjust to new developments as a case unfolds. Yet medicine resolutely ignores both the maxims and the tension between the practical reasoning they represent and the claim that medicine is a science. Indeed, resolute epistemological naivete is part of medicine's accommodation to uncertainty; counterweighted, competing, apparently paradoxical (but always situational) rules enable physicians simultaneously to express and to ignore the practical reason that characterizes their practice.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":77444,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Theoretical medicine\",\"volume\":\"17 3\",\"pages\":\"225-41\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"1996-09-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1007/BF00489447\",\"citationCount\":\"68\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Theoretical medicine\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00489447\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Theoretical medicine","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00489447","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 68

摘要

在一个不确定的知识领域进行回顾性工作,医生从事的是一种解释性实践,这种实践是由平衡的、相互竞争的、有时是矛盾的格言指导的。“当你听到马蹄声时,不要以为是斑马。”这是其中最重要的一条,是医学实践智慧的缩影,是医学的解释学规则。临床格言中积累和矛盾的智慧必然来自医疗实践的病例基础性质和良好实践所需的叙事合理性。这些格言都有它们的对立面,这迫使学生和医生产生一种实际的怀疑态度,鼓励他们质疑自己的期望,打破常规,并随着病例的发展适应新的发展。然而,医学界坚决忽视了这些格言,也忽视了它们所代表的实际推理与医学是一门科学的主张之间的紧张关系。事实上,坚定的认识论天真是医学适应不确定性的一部分;平衡的、相互竞争的、明显矛盾的(但总是情境化的)规则使医生能够同时表达和忽略他们实践中所特有的实际原因。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
"Don't think zebras": uncertainty, interpretation, and the place of paradox in clinical education.

Working retrospectively in an uncertain field of knowledge, physicians are engaged in an interpretive practice that is guided by counterweighted, competing, sometimes paradoxical maxims. "When you hear hoofbeats, don't think zebras," is the chief of these, the epitome of medicine's practical wisdom, its hermeneutic rule. The accumulated and contradictory wisdom distilled in clinical maxims arises necessarily from the case-based nature of medical practice and the narrative rationality that good practice requires. That these maxims all have their opposites enforces in students and physicians a practical skepticism that encourages them to question their expectations, interrupt patterns, and adjust to new developments as a case unfolds. Yet medicine resolutely ignores both the maxims and the tension between the practical reasoning they represent and the claim that medicine is a science. Indeed, resolute epistemological naivete is part of medicine's accommodation to uncertainty; counterweighted, competing, apparently paradoxical (but always situational) rules enable physicians simultaneously to express and to ignore the practical reason that characterizes their practice.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信