Week 6 - Discussion
docx
keyboard_arrow_up
School
Chamberlain University College of Nursing *
*We aren’t endorsed by this school
Course
10866
Subject
Philosophy
Date
Dec 6, 2023
Type
docx
Pages
3
Uploaded by ConstableOctopusPerson828
Week 6
Three core approaches to inductive reasoning
1.
Comparative reasoning (analogical reasoning)
2.
Two forms of empirical reasoning (reasoning from observation)
a.
Inductive generalization
b.
Casual reasoning
Critical reasoning is about making, defending, and understanding conclusions about our
observations of the world around us.
We reason our way from observations to conclusions – the "
reasoning up"
of inductive
reasoning
or
having arrived at general judgments and conclusions about the world around
us.
We "
reason down
" from those generalities to their application to circumstances
The text defines two approaches to inductive reasoning – comparative and empirical reasoning –
so there are two discussions this week.
Empirical reasoning
Depends on observation.
Includes taking samples of populations.
Testing to see if there is a cause and effect.
o
Inductive generalization
Statistical methods
o
Casual reasoning
Comparative Reasoning
The use of an analogy
Has a long tradition in medicine – both in research and in learning and explaining
medical terms and conditions.
Noticing similarities lead us to wonder if they are like others – ex. What I know
about treating one type of infection may be transferable to another.
Principal of Moral Equivalence
Compares the ethics of two actions and decides if the two are “just about as good
as” or “just about as bad as”
False moral equivalency occurs when the comparison is faulty
Discussion
In what way are the two situations similar?
These two situations are similar due to them both pertaining to substances that
could be or are harmful. Tobacco products and opioids were able to flourish due to
doctors promoting or prescribing these harmful substances. The tobacco industry
capitalized on medical professionals promoting them, in 1946 the popular company
Camel created a slogan that said, “More doctors smoke Camels than any other cigarette”
(Gardner & Brandt, 2006). Now a slogan like this would lead people to think “if the
doctors think it’s okay, then it must be okay”. As far as opioids, there were several
misconceptions and deceiving information out there for patients and physicians. Ronald
Hirsch, MD states that physicians were faced with the possibility of malpractice lawsuits
if they did not adequately treat pain, and that prescribing 30 days’ worth of pills when
only a few days were sufficient, was just easier which could also lead to the remaining
pills being sold, stolen, or taken anyway leading to an addiction (2017). The bottom line
is these two are similar because they both involved deceiving information for all, and
exploitation of physicians and the influence they have on patients.
In what way are the two situations different?
These two situations are different because with tobacco products, doctors’ titles
and authority were being manipulated to lead everyone to believe tobacco products were
safe and recommended by medical professionals. For the opioid epidemic, doctors were
informed false information that only 1% of patients became addicted to prescribed
opioids, and that they would face malpractice lawsuits if they did not treat pain enough.
Though, this did lead doctors to become criminals in the way that some started to
illegally prescribe medications on the side and accept payment for them (Hirsch, 2017)
which aided in the epidemic, there’s an estimation that 50% of opioid overdoses that end
in death are from prescriptions (Gale, 2016)
Apply the concept of moral equivalence. Is the conduct of doctors in relation to the tobacco
industry morally equivalent to the conduct of doctors in the opioid crisis?
The concept of moral equivalence states that actions that are similar, morally,
should be treated and evaluated similarly. When taking both situations into account and
evaluating their similarities, it’s safe to say in both scenarios doctors acted unethically
and committed immoral actions. We cannot single out the percentage of doctors who
acted unethically mistakenly, and those who did knowingly. Doctors did not know the
effects of tobacco use back in the 1930-40’s, but they
still
promoted it – similarly the
doctors did not know the truth of opioids and how easy it is to become addicted to, but
they
still
prescribed an unethical amount.
Discussion 2
Methodology of Quinn (1999) (Study #1)
There was a study done by Quinn
et al.
in 1999, this study was done to show if there was
correlation between nearsightedness, or myopia, and ambient night-time light exposure. This
study consisted of 479 children between the ages of 2 and 16 years old, and the researchers used
a questionnaire as their form of conducting research. They found that children who had some
form of night light in their room under the age of 2 had a greater association or were nearsighted.
The study states that it “does not establish a causal link” and “it raises the possibility of a ‘critical
period’” (Quinn, et al., 1999). This shows that these findings did not show concrete evidence, but
just an association between children who were nearsighted and if they had ambient lighting in
their room under the age of 2. I think the most failed step in scientific investigation is step 4 –
identifying all the factors related to the hypothesis, as these researchers did not take other
conditions into consideration, like genetics.
Methodology of Zadnik (2000) (Study #2)
Zadnik
et al.
study maintained a different approach with different findings, for the same
question. It was pointed out in Quinn’s study, that parents who were myopic themselves, were
more likely to use a night-light in their children’s rooms than non-myopic parents and there is a
possibility this was not considered which then effected the results of the study (NEI, 2000). With
Zadnik’s method, they examined a higher number of children and noted that their findings would
provide relief to parents who let their children use a nightlight (Zadnik
et al
., 2000), meaning
they found that children who slept with a nightlight did not lead them to have a greater
association with being myopic, but rather genetics. This study was also conducted on a median
age of 8 years old, rather than 11 by Quinn.
Impact of Methodology on Reporting
The methodology involved and the way studies are reported, most certainly influences how the
study is viewed and received by the masses. Both studies performed focused on the same subject,
but the methods involved were vastly different leading to an effective and ineffective conclusion.
Study #1 created a hypothesis and focused on one form to measure and test the hypothesis.
Whereas study #2 involved extensive other conditions that could cause or worsen myopia in
children, rather than just if a child under 2 used a night light. This effects how people view the
study and trust the worthiness of it – if the methodology is not correlating then there is no
worthiness in the study.
References
Quinn, G. et al. (1999).
Myopia and ambient lighting at night
.
Nature.
https://doi.org/10.1038/20094
Links to an external site.
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. (2000).
Myopia development and nighttime
light exposure in infancy
. National Eye Institute. https://www.nei.nih.gov/about/news-and-
events/news/myopia-development-and-nighttime-light-exposure-infancy
Zadnik, K. et al. (2000).
Myopia and ambient night-time lighting.
Nature.
https://doi.org/10.1038/35004661
Your preview ends here
Eager to read complete document? Join bartleby learn and gain access to the full version
- Access to all documents
- Unlimited textbook solutions
- 24/7 expert homework help