![]() ![]() Descartes (1641) argued that all that we can know of the real world is tainted by our senses and abilities of understanding. It has been proposed that the real (objective) world and our (subjective) perception of the real world are not the same. One particular epistemological question relates to the Object - Subject distinction and asks whether the objective world is subjectively knowable at all. Practical application also requires focus on the quality of the systematic reviews and reviewed trials.Įpistemology is described as the branch of philosophy that concerns itself with questions regarding human knowledge. ConclusionsĪ refutation of radical philosophical scepticism to clinical evidence may be achieved, if and only if such evidence is based on the logical and empirical coherence of multiple systematic review results. In praxis, these systematic reviews would also need to be of high quality and its conclusions based on reviewed high quality trials. For success, several systematic reviews covering interconnected beliefs are needed. The results show that radical scepticism may epistemologically be refuted on the basis of logical and empirical coherence. The case study illustrates how principles of logical and empirical coherence may be applied as evidence in support of specific beliefs in healthcare. MethodsĪ case study including seven systematic reviews is presented with the objective of refuting radical philosophical scepticism towards the belief that glass-ionomer cements (GIC) are beneficial in tooth caries therapy. This article aims to offer, on the basis of Coherence theory, the epistemological proposition that mutually supportive evidence from multiple systematic reviews may successfully refute radical, philosophical scepticism. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |