title: Logical fallacies in medical practice
metadata.name: dc.contributor.author
metadata.value: Skryabin, Valentin Yu.
metadata.lang: -
metadata.name: dc.date.accessioned
metadata.value: 2023-03-30T11:58:44Z
metadata.lang: -
metadata.name: dc.date.available
metadata.value: 2023-03-30T11:58:44Z
metadata.lang: -
metadata.name: dc.date.issued
metadata.value: 2022-09
metadata.lang: -
metadata.name: dc.identifier.citation
metadata.value: Skryabin V. Yu. Logical fallacies in medical practice. Vestnik of Saint Petersburg University. Medicine, 2022, vol. 17, issue 3, pp. 154–165. https://doi.org/10.21638/spbu11.2022.301 (In Russian)
metadata.lang: en_GB
metadata.name: dc.identifier.other
metadata.value: https://doi.org/10.21638/spbu11.2022.301
metadata.lang: -
metadata.name: dc.identifier.uri
metadata.value: http://hdl.handle.net/11701/39433
metadata.lang: -
metadata.name: dc.description.abstract
metadata.value: 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.
metadata.lang: en_GB
metadata.name: dc.language.iso
metadata.value: ru
metadata.lang: en_GB
metadata.name: dc.publisher
metadata.value: St Petersburg State University
metadata.lang: en_GB
metadata.name: dc.relation.ispartofseries
metadata.value: Vestnik of St Petersburg University. Medicine;Volume 17; Issue 3
metadata.lang: -
metadata.name: dc.subject
metadata.value: clinical thinking
metadata.lang: en_GB
metadata.name: dc.subject
metadata.value: rhetoric
metadata.lang: en_GB
metadata.name: dc.subject
metadata.value: logical error
metadata.lang: en_GB
metadata.name: dc.subject
metadata.value: argument
metadata.lang: en_GB
metadata.name: dc.subject
metadata.value: manipulation
metadata.lang: en_GB
metadata.name: dc.title
metadata.value: Logical fallacies in medical practice
metadata.lang: en_GB
metadata.name: dc.type
metadata.value: Article
metadata.lang: en_GB
resources.filename: 01.pdf
resources.url: https://dspace.spbu.ru/bitstream/11701/39433/1/01.pdf
resources.format: Adobe PDF
resources.size: 647,5 kB