“证据”和生物医学

Ana Rodríguez Allen
{"title":"“证据”和生物医学","authors":"Ana Rodríguez Allen","doi":"10.15359/PRAXIS.74.1","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"espanolEste articulo muestra que la justifcacion del enfoque medico dominante, de que su actividad es cientifca porque parte de la evidencia de las pruebas, en muchos casos observacionales, es un acto de fe, que resulta completamente anacronico en comparacion con los debates cientifcos contemporaneos. EnglishThis article demonstrates that the justifcation of the dominant medical focus, stating its activities are scientifc because they require the evidence of proof, that is in many cases observational, is an act of faith that is ultimately completely anachronistic in comparison to the contemporary scientifc debates.","PeriodicalId":20367,"journal":{"name":"Praxis Journal of Philosophy","volume":"49 1","pages":"11-34"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2018-03-22","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"“EVIDENCIA” Y BIOMEDICINA\",\"authors\":\"Ana Rodríguez Allen\",\"doi\":\"10.15359/PRAXIS.74.1\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"espanolEste articulo muestra que la justifcacion del enfoque medico dominante, de que su actividad es cientifca porque parte de la evidencia de las pruebas, en muchos casos observacionales, es un acto de fe, que resulta completamente anacronico en comparacion con los debates cientifcos contemporaneos. EnglishThis article demonstrates that the justifcation of the dominant medical focus, stating its activities are scientifc because they require the evidence of proof, that is in many cases observational, is an act of faith that is ultimately completely anachronistic in comparison to the contemporary scientifc debates.\",\"PeriodicalId\":20367,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Praxis Journal of Philosophy\",\"volume\":\"49 1\",\"pages\":\"11-34\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2018-03-22\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"1\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Praxis Journal of Philosophy\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.15359/PRAXIS.74.1\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Praxis Journal of Philosophy","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.15359/PRAXIS.74.1","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

摘要

这篇文章表明,主流医学方法的正当性,即他们的活动是科学的,因为部分证据的证据,在许多观察情况下,是一种信仰行为,与当代的科学辩论相比,这是完全过时的。这篇文章表明,对占主导地位的医学重点及其活动的正当性是科学的,因为它们需要证据的证据,这在许多观察性案例中是一种信仰行为,与当代科学辩论相比,这种信仰行为最终是完全不合时宜的。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
“EVIDENCIA” Y BIOMEDICINA
espanolEste articulo muestra que la justifcacion del enfoque medico dominante, de que su actividad es cientifca porque parte de la evidencia de las pruebas, en muchos casos observacionales, es un acto de fe, que resulta completamente anacronico en comparacion con los debates cientifcos contemporaneos. EnglishThis article demonstrates that the justifcation of the dominant medical focus, stating its activities are scientifc because they require the evidence of proof, that is in many cases observational, is an act of faith that is ultimately completely anachronistic in comparison to the contemporary scientifc debates.
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