Sterowniki Hp1500 Windows 7

Occam and his razor. Bad

I'm not talking about cowboys and Indians, or John Wayne or anything. What we bring to you today has to do with why the end the answer is, not where we least expect it before our eyes, just waiting for us to condescend to give due prominence.

How often do we complicate thinking about thousands of possible causes, reasons, quasi unbelievable possibilities to explain an observation? For one example: those who believe in paranormal events, the homeopathy, freaks of conspiracy theories, everything is valid and always responds to a complex development causes and reasons that many times (in all previous course) has little to do with reality.

But what happens when we apply this model of thinking, so human on the other hand, science or medicine? usually involves a minimum investment of time and significant resources to verify or refute hypotheses or theories complex, in many cases could have been resolved by following the principle of parsimony or simplicity (Occam's razor ) which assumes that to accept a complex hypotheses must predict it data / observation much better than simple hypotheses.

In medicine for example it often happens that "trees can not see the forest" and to give to the cause of any symptoms they go to more complex reasoning to validate and provide treatment to patients subjected to all the evidence necessary to Thus, in many cases painful, invasive and unnecessary. The principle of simplicity applied to medicine suggests that the diagnosis should find the smallest or the most obvious of reasons to explain all the symptoms. And here is the crux of the matter because if you stay with the most obvious expliación but this only explains part of the symptomatology the diagnosis is wrong.

Let's take a year of "diagnosis": a patient over 50 years comes into your query, and the first thing you observe is that obese, the second to read your file having type 2 diabetes and a family history of heart problems and circulation. After a couple of heart function tests, the result is that something is wrong, but the analytic rule cholesterol problems, the doctor says nothing about overweight and yet recommended an invasive test to rule out arterial problems. Guess the result right? with only one eye and ignoring the principle above that the problem almost obvious, but it is necessary that this test is negative and an expert meeting to conclude the obvious: being overweight is that cardiac function is limited.

Eye ! I'm not saying rule out another type of damage is not necessary especially when there is danger of death, never refuse a colonoscopy when there is a risk of colon cancer but before I go to such extremes that it makes sense to evaluate simpler hypotheses and once discarded they proceed to the next step and not start the cart before the horse.

I also think that perhaps it is a basic problem of how health, expect quick answers, there is overcrowding in the medical system and have virtually no time even to think about what is best in each case or are blinded by their specialization or in the case of American medicine, medicine is a "defensive" which are responsible for all kinds of tests needed or not because the risk of being sued for malpractice is so high that no one wants to risk it, and therefore cover the back sending a "complete."

not, what do you think? Is my reasoning appropriate and simple enough, or I move away from the complicated and I intend to defend? In the end, we are all human.