Logical fallacies in medical practice

Authors

  • Valentin Skryabin Russian Medical Academy of Continuous Professional Education, 2/1, ul. Barrikadnaya, Moscow, 125993, Russian Federation; Moscow Scientific and Practical Center of Narcology, 37/1, ul. Lyublinskaya, Moscow, 109390, Russian Federation https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4942-8556

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.21638/spbu11.2022.301

Abstract

Clinical reasoning as a method of problem-solving in routine medical practice is the basis of all decisions made by physicians to understand the disease and choose appropriate therapeutic tactics. The interaction between physicians and the exchange of opinions can often lead to disagreements about diagnostic and treatment priorities. The quality of the arguments presented is critical, which makes it necessary to be aware of the most common logical errors, i. e. faulty reasoning. Logical fallacies can have a negative effect, leading to incorrect medical decisions. Understanding the features according to which arguments may be considered valid or, conversely, untenable is therefore an important skill for clinicians of all specialties and an integral part of the ability to process incoming information effectively
and correctly. This article provides a description of some of the most common types of logical fallacies, along with examples to help clarify their content. While the number of possible logical fallacies in reasoning and debate is vast, most invalid arguments tend to fall into one of the most common stereotypical patterns. By learning about the most common logical fallacies, clinicians will be better prepared to recognize fallacious arguments when faced with them in their clinical practice.

Keywords:

clinical thinking, rhetoric, logical error, argument, manipulation

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.
 

References

Литература

Шлычков А. В., Черба А. Р. Актуальные проблемы клинического мышления и современность// Успехи современного естествознания. 2008. № 5. С. 140–141.

Мингаирова А. Г., Павлинова Е. Б., Власенко Н. Ю., Полянская Н. А., Савченко О. А., Киршина И. А., Демченко В. И. Клиническое мышление: проблемы формирования и возможности развития // Медицинский альманах. 2017. Т. 47, № 2. С. 27–30.

Современный философский словарь / под общ. ред. В. Е. Кемерова и Т. Х. Керимова. М.: Академический проспект, 2004. 864 с.

Макулин А. В., Рубенко А. С. Философия, логика и визуализация клинического мышления// Общество: философия, история, культура. 2021. Т. 82, № 2. С. 13–20.

Минасова Е. Ю. Логика врачебного мышления // Бюллетень медицинских интернет-конференций. 2018. Т. 8, № 11. С. 592–596.

Бирюков Б. В., Васюков В. Л. Новая философская энциклопедия: в 4 т. Т. 2. М.: Мысль, 2010. 634 с.

Мокий М. С., Никифоров А. Л., Мокий В. С. Методология научных исследований. М.: Юрайт, 2019. 255 с.

Jenicek M. How to think in medicine: Reasoning, decision making, and communication in health sciences and professions. New York: Productivity Press, 2018. 550 p.

Саган К. Мозг Брока. О науке, космосе и человеке. М.: Альпина нон-фикшн, 2021. 458 с.

Hansen H. V., Pinto R. C. Fallacies: Classical and contemporary readings. [S. l.], Pennsylvania State University Press, 1995. 368 p.

Саган К. Мир, полный демонов. Наука — как свеча во тьме М.: Альпина паблишер, 2014. 544 с.

Уити М. Убеждай и побеждай! Гайд по безукоризненной риторике и железной логике. М.: АСТ, 2021. 256 с.

Шопенгауэр А. Эристика, или Искусство побеждать в спорах. СПб.: Владимирская типография, 1900. 70 с.

Gambrill E., Gibbs L. Critical thinking for helping professionals: A skills-based workbook. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2017. 448 p.

Пирогов Н. И. Сочинения Н. И. Пирогова:в 2 т. Т. 1.СПб.: Тип. М. М. Стасюлевича,1887.525с.

Stone J. R. Latin for the illiterati: A modern guide to an ancient language. London: Routledge, 2009.360 p.

Светлов В. А. Современная логика: учеб. пособие. СПб.: Питер, 2006. 400 с.

Walton D. N. Informal logic: A handbook for critical argumentation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1989. 310 p.

Халперн Д. Психология критического мышления. СПб.: Питер, 2000. 512 с.

Walton D. N. Fallacies arising from ambiguity. New York: Springer, 1996. 307 p.

Хоменко И. В. Логика: теория и практика аргументации. М.: Юрайт, 2012. 314 с.

Patel V. L., Kaufman D. R., Arocha J. F. Emerging paradigms of cognition in medical decision-making// Journal of Biomedical Informatics. 2002. Vol. 35. P. 52–75.

Chi M. T. H., Feltovich P. J., Glaser R. Categorization and representation of physics problem by experts and novices // Cognitive Science. 1981. Vol. 5. P. 121–152.


References

Shlychkov A. V., Cherba A. R. Actual problems of clinical thinking and modernity. Uspekhi sovremennogo estestvoznaniia, 2008, vol. 5, pp. 140–141. (In Russian)

Mingairova A. G., Pavlinova E. B., Vlasenko N. Ju., Poljanskaja N. A., Savchenko O. A., Kirshina I. A., Demchenko V. I. Clinical thinking: problems of formation and development opportunities. Meditsinskii al’manakh, 2017, vol. 2, no. 47, pp. 27–30. (In Russian)

Kemerov V. E. Modern philosophical dictionary. Moscow, Akademicheskii prospect Publ., 2004, 864 p.(In Russian)

Makulin A. V., Rubenko A. S. Philosophy, logic, and visualization of clinical thinking. Obshhestvo: filosofiia, istoriia, kul’tura, 2021, vol. 2, no. 82, pp. 13–20. (In Russian)

Minasova E. Ju. Logic of medical thinking. Biulleten’ meditsinskikh internet konferentsii, 2018, vol. 8, no. 11, pp. 592–596. (In Russian)

Biriukov B. V., Vasiukov V. L. New philosophical encyclopedia, in 4 vols, vol. 2. Moscow, Mysl’ Publ., 2010, 634 p. (In Russian)

Mokii M. S., Nikiforov A. L., Mokii V. S. Methodology of scientific research. Moscow, Iurait Publ., 2019, 255 p. (In Russian)

Jenicek M. How to think in medicine: Reasoning, decision making, and communication in health sciences and professions. New York, Productivity Press, 2018, 550 p.

Sagan K. Brock’s Brain: On Science, Space and Man. Rus. ed. Moscow, Al’pina non-fikshn Publ., 2021, 458 p. (In Russian)

Hansen H. V., Pinto R. C. Fallacies: Classical and contemporary readings. [S. l.], Pennsylvania State University Press, 1995, 368 p.

Sagan K. A world full of demons: Science is like a candle in the darkness. Rus. ed. Moscow, Al’pina Pablisher, 2014, 544 p. (In Russian)

Uiti M. Convince and win! Hyde on immaculate rhetoric and iron logic. Rus. ed. Moscow, AST Publ., 2021, 256 p. (In Russian)

Schopenhauer A. Eristika, or The Art of Winning Disputes. Rus. ed. St Petersburg, Vladimirskaia Tipo-Litografiia Publ., 1900, 70 p. (In Russian)

Gambrill E., Gibbs L. Critical thinking for helping professionals: A skills-based workbook. Oxford, Oxford University Press, 2017, 448 p.

Pirogov N. I. Works of N. I. Pirogov, in 2 vols, vol. 1. St Petersburg, Tipografiia M. M. Stasiulevicha Publ., 1887, 525 p. (In Russian)

Stone J. R. Latin for the illiterati: A modern guide to an ancient language. London, Routledge, 2009,360 p.

Svetlov V. A. Modern logic. St Petersburg, Piter Publ., 2006, 400 p. (In Russian)

Walton D. N. Informal logic: A handbook for critical argumentation. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 1989, 310 p.

Halpern D. Psychology of critical thinking. Rus. ed. St Petersburg, Piter Publ., 2000, 512 p. (In Russian)

Walton D. N. Fallacies arising from ambiguity. New York, Springer, 1996, 307 p.

Homenko I. V. Logic. Theory and practice of argumentation. Moscow, Iurait Publ., 2012, 314 p. (In Russian)

Patel V. L., Kaufman D. R., Arocha J. F. Emerging paradigms of cognition in medical decision-making.Journal of Biomedical Informatics, 2002, vol. 35, pp. 52–75.

Chi M. T. H., Feltovich P. J., Glaser R. Categorization and representation of physics problem by experts and novices. Cognitive Science, 1981, vol. 5, pp. 121–152.

Downloads

Published

2023-03-24

How to Cite

Skryabin, V. . (2023). Logical fallacies in medical practice. Vestnik of Saint Petersburg University. Medicine, 17(3), 154–165. https://doi.org/10.21638/spbu11.2022.301

Issue

Vol. 17 No. 3 (2022)

Section

Internal medicine

License

Articles of "Vestnik of Saint Petersburg University. Medicine" are open access distributed under the terms of the License Agreement with Saint Petersburg State University, which permits to the authors unrestricted distribution and self-archiving free of charge.