Three paradoxes of medical diagnosis

G. William Moore, Grover M. Hutchins

    Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

    Abstract

    Sadegh-zadeh [23] has proposed a theory of the relativity of medical diagnosis in terms of the time at which a diagnosis is accepted, the patient to whom the diagnosis applies, the physician who renders the diagnosis, the medical knowledge used, the diagnostic method applied, and the set of patient observations. Use of classical formal logic as the 'diagnostic method' may result in three paradoxes: the paradoxes of consistency, completeness, and justifiable ignorance. These paradoxes may be resolved by the addition of two non-classical operators, the 'certainty' and 'effort' operators, akin to the non-classical operators of modal logic.

    Original languageEnglish (US)
    Pages (from-to)197-215
    Number of pages19
    JournalMetamedicine
    Volume2
    Issue number2
    DOIs
    StatePublished - Jun 1981

    Keywords

    • Automated diagnosis
    • Certainty levels
    • Consistency
    • Logic of medicine
    • Medical diagnosis
    • Paradox
    • Symbolic logic

    ASJC Scopus subject areas

    • Social Sciences (miscellaneous)
    • Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health

    Fingerprint Dive into the research topics of 'Three paradoxes of medical diagnosis'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

  • Cite this

    Moore, G. W., & Hutchins, G. M. (1981). Three paradoxes of medical diagnosis. Metamedicine, 2(2), 197-215. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00884423