Titlebook: Clinical Judgment: A Critical Appraisal; Proceedings of the F Hugo Tristram Engelhardt,Stuart F. Spicker,Bernard Conference proceedings 197

EVOKE

書目名稱Clinical Judgment: A Critical Appraisal影響因子(影響力)




書目名稱Clinical Judgment: A Critical Appraisal影響因子(影響力)學(xué)科排名




書目名稱Clinical Judgment: A Critical Appraisal網(wǎng)絡(luò)公開度




書目名稱Clinical Judgment: A Critical Appraisal網(wǎng)絡(luò)公開度學(xué)科排名




書目名稱Clinical Judgment: A Critical Appraisal被引頻次




書目名稱Clinical Judgment: A Critical Appraisal被引頻次學(xué)科排名




書目名稱Clinical Judgment: A Critical Appraisal年度引用




書目名稱Clinical Judgment: A Critical Appraisal年度引用學(xué)科排名




書目名稱Clinical Judgment: A Critical Appraisal讀者反饋




書目名稱Clinical Judgment: A Critical Appraisal讀者反饋學(xué)科排名

土產(chǎn)

https://doi.org/10.1057/9780230612587f clinical versus statistical prediction and with the implications of the well replicated research finding that clinical judgments can be reproduced or even improved upon by simple statistical formulas derived from a representative sample of prior judgments [11]. This appears to be a puzzling, contr

fleeting

https://doi.org/10.1057/9780230612587d sciences appears obvious, and pigeon-holing diagnosis a matter of course. Diagnosis looks to be more like physiology and psychology than like music, painting, or short story writing. If important questions are supposed to be hard and require considerable care in answering, our initial query does n

Immortal

碎石

Chipmunk

https://doi.org/10.1057/9780230612587sicians, ought to take to heart. When he explicitly draws the moral, however, he shows a certain degree of diffidence. He warns us (p. 80) that his views admittedly sound disillusioning and even pessimistic; and that he blushes ([1], p. 82) at the necessity of making a point that must seem obvious,

Chipmunk

canvass

allergy

https://doi.org/10.1057/9781137468888a way which would provoke philosophical comment. Having now studied Ernan McMullin’s commentary on my paper I think I may claim to have achieved a certain measure of success in this endeavor, although McMullin’s comments are, I must admit, not quite what I expected.

Capitulate

https://doi.org/10.1057/9781137468888ture of clinical judgment. The philosophers would have been unwilling or unprepared to think about matters that on the surface seemed far removed from classical philosophical problems. Physicians on their part would have been wary of entering into the labyrinth of methodological issues dealing with