Clinical Decisions and Empirical Dilemma :- Priori Knowledge independent of Experience vs Posterior Knowledge dependent on Experience

Leon Festinger, American social psychologist, is credited to have developed the idea around Cognitive Dissonance


As such evidence in Evidence Based Medicine is sought and built around empirical evidence, as experienced and commonly observed, the dilemma is that this empirical evidence has the hazard of being fraught with cognitive dissonance. employs algorithmic approach based on Hyperbolic Dirac Net that allows inference nets that are a general graph (GC), including cyclic paths, thus surpassing the limitation in the Bayes Net that is traditionally a Directed Acyclic Graph (DAG) by definition.

The approach thus more fundamentally reflects the nature of probabilistic knowledge in the real world, which has the potential for taking account of the interaction between all things without limitation, and ironically this more explicitly makes use of Bayes rule far more than does a Bayes Net.  It also allows more elaborate relationships than mere conditional dependencies, as a probabilistic semantics analogous to natural human language but with a more detailed sense of probability.

To identify the things and their relationships that are important and provide the required probabilities, the scouts the large complex data of both structured and also  information of unstructured textual character. It treats initial raw extracted knowledge rather in the manner of potentially erroneous or ambiguous prior knowledge, and validated and curated knowledge as posterior knowledge, and enables the refinement of knowledge extracted from authoritative scientific texts into an intuitive canonical “deep structure” mental-algebraic form that the can more readily manipulate.

Empiricity has the hazard of introducing Cognitive Dissonance.

Why “Science”-Based Instead of “Evidence”-Based?

The rationale for making medicine more science-based

A priori and a posteriori

From above link:-

The Latin phrases a priori ( “from the earlier”) and a posteriori ( “from the latter”) are philosophical terms of art popularized by Immanuel Kant‘s Critique of Pure Reason (first published in 1781, second edition in 1787), one of the most influential works in the history of philosophy.[1] However, in their Latin forms they appear in Latin translations of Euclid‘s Elements, of about 300 bc, a work widely considered during the early European modern period as the model for precise thinking.

These terms are used with respect to reasoning (epistemology) to distinguish necessary conclusions from first premises (i.e., what must come before sense observation) from conclusions based on sense observation (which must follow it). Thus, the two kinds of knowledgejustification, or argument[clarification needed] may be glossed:

There are many points of view on these two types of knowledge, and their relationship is one of the oldest problems in modern philosophy.

The terms a priori and a posteriori are primarily used as adjectives to modify the noun “knowledge” (for example, a priori knowledge”). However, “a priori” is sometimes used to modify other nouns, such as “truth”. Philosophers also may use “apriority” and “aprioricity” as nouns to refer (approximately) to the quality of being “a priori“.[4]

Although definitions and use of the terms have varied in the history of philosophy, they have consistently labeled two separate epistemological notions. See also the related distinctions: deductive/inductiveanalytic/syntheticnecessary/contingent.


Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: