Editor, Editors, USER, admin, Bureaucrats, Check users, dev, editor, Interface administrators, lookupuser, oversight, Push subscription managers, Suppressors, Administrators, translator, Widget editors
17,894
edits
Gianfranco (talk | contribs)  | 
				Gianfranco (talk | contribs)   | 
				||
| Line 748: | Line 748: | ||
Well, ''all of these statements seem coherent'' with the sentence <math>\Im</math> initially described, whereby the dentist colleague feels justified in saying that the set of sentences <math>\Im</math>, and a number <math>n\geq1</math> of other assertions or clinical data <math>(\delta_1,\delta_2,.....\delta_n \ )</math> are logically compatible as the union between them <math>\Im\cup\{\delta_1,\delta_2.....\delta_n\}</math> is coherent.{{q4|<!--211-->Following the logic of classical language, the dentist is right!|<!--212-->It would seem so! <br><!--213-->But, be careful, only in his own dental context!}}  | Well, ''all of these statements seem coherent'' with the sentence <math>\Im</math> initially described, whereby the dentist colleague feels justified in saying that the set of sentences <math>\Im</math>, and a number <math>n\geq1</math> of other assertions or clinical data <math>(\delta_1,\delta_2,.....\delta_n \ )</math> are logically compatible as the union between them <math>\Im\cup\{\delta_1,\delta_2.....\delta_n\}</math> is coherent.{{q4|<!--211-->Following the logic of classical language, the dentist is right!|<!--212-->It would seem so! <br><!--213-->But, be careful, only in his own dental context!}}  | ||
This statement is so true that the <math  | This statement is so true that the <math>P-value</math> could be infinitely extended, widened enough to obtain an <math>\alpha=0</math> that corresponds to it in an infinite significance, as long as it remains limited in its context; yet, without meaning anything from a clinical point of view in other contexts, like in the neurologist one, for instance.  | ||
==Final considerations==  | ==Final considerations==  | ||
From a perspective of observation of this kind, the Logic of Predicates can only fortify the dentist’s reasoning and, at the same time, strengthen the <u  | From a perspective of observation of this kind, the Logic of Predicates can only fortify the dentist’s reasoning and, at the same time, strengthen the <u>principle of the excluded third</u>: the principle is strengthened through the compatibility of the additional assertions <math>(\delta_1,\delta_2,.....\delta_n \ )</math> which grant the dentist a complete coherence in the diagnosis and in confirming the sentence <math>\Im</math>: Poor Mary Poppins either has TMD, or she has not.{{q4|...<!--224-->and what if, with the advancement of research, new phenomena were discovered that would prove the neurologist right, instead of the dentist?|}}  | ||
Basically, given the compatibility of the assertions <math>(\delta_1,\delta_2,.....\delta_n \ )</math>, coherently saying that Orofacial Pain is caused by a Temporomandibular Disorders could become incompatible if another series of assertions <math>(\gamma_1,\gamma_2,.....\gamma_n \ )</math> were shown to be coherent: this would make a different sentence compatible <math>\Im</math>: could poor Mary Poppins suffer from Orofacial Pain from a neuromotor disorder (<sub>n</sub>OP) and not by a Temporomandibular Disorders?  | |||
In the current medical language logic, such assertions only remain assertions, because the convictions and opinions do not allow a consequent and quick change of the mindset.  | |||
Moreover, taking into account the risk that this change entails, in fact, we might consider a recent article on the epidemiology of temporomandibular disorders<ref>{{cite book    | |||
  | autore = LeResche L  |   | autore = LeResche L  | ||
  | titolo = Epidemiology of temporomandibular disorders: implications for the investigation of etiologic factors  |   | titolo = Epidemiology of temporomandibular disorders: implications for the investigation of etiologic factors  | ||
| Line 770: | Line 770: | ||
  | DOI = 10.1177/10454411970080030401  |   | DOI = 10.1177/10454411970080030401  | ||
  | oaf = <!-- qualsiasi valore -->  |   | oaf = <!-- qualsiasi valore -->  | ||
  }}</ref  |   }}</ref> in which the authors confirm that despite the methodological and population differences, pain in the temporomandibular region appears to be relatively common, occurring in about the 10% of the population; we may then objectively be led to hypothesize that our Mary Poppins can be included in the 10% of the patients mentioned in the epidemiological study, and contextually be classified as a patient suffering from Orofacial Pain from Temporomandibular Disorders (TMDs).  | ||
In conclusion, it is evident that a classical logic of language, which has an extremely dichotomous approach (either it is white or it is black), cannot depict the many shades that occur in real clinical situations.  | |||
We need to find a more convenient and suitable language logic...{{q4|... <!--237-->can we then think of a Probabilistic Language Logic?|<!--238-->perhaps}}  | |||
{{q4|... <!--237-->can we then think of a Probabilistic Language Logic?|<!--238-->perhaps}}  | |||
{{Btnav|The logic of medical language|The logic of probabilistic language}}  | {{Btnav|The logic of medical language|The logic of probabilistic language}}  | ||
edits