ArticleTurkish journal of ophthalmology2021
Does Ophthalmology Need Philosophy?
Article in Turkish journal of ophthalmology, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed, 0 citations in OpenAlex.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors at 1 institution in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Although ophthalmology has made significant progress and awareness about eye care and the accessibility of health technology has increased, there are still aspects that might be improved. One of the ways to achieve improvement is philosophical investigation of some reasoning and behavior styles in ophthalmology. Philosophy means love of wisdom, and the philosophical approach can contribute to increasing the wisdom of ophthalmologists. Logical fallacies currently affecting the decisions of ophthalmologists can be reduced. "ontology" can contribute to a better understanding of "the nature of reality". A detailed inquiry about the basic concepts concerning ophthalmology may support better reasoning styles. Reflecting on epistemological questions such as "What is true knowledge?", justifying information, and having a skeptical attitude may help to make decisions with more accurate information. The philosophy of science is concerned with the detailed investigation, questioning, and understanding of ophthalmologists' scientific activities and may form the missing link between ophthalmology and philosophy. Moreover, the claim that philosophy's contribution to science is of no interest to scientists warrants consideration. The philosophers of science Karl Popper and Thomas Kuhn have made significant contributions to the perception of science that are still valid today. Karl Popper proposed that a demarcation between science and pseudo-science might be made through the concept of "falsification". According to this concept, a statement is scientific if it can be tested and falsified using valid methods. Thomas Kuhn stated that major scientific changes (i.e., revolutions) occur through paradigm shifts. Although the areas of moral philosophy/ethics/bioethics have generated useful ideas and practices for the improvement of the art of medicine, bioethics in particular deserves to be questioned philosophically by physicians living in real life. Ophthalmologists can develop more beneficial and realistic ophthalmology education, research, diagnosis, treatment, and rehabilitation practices by utilizing the basic methods of philosophy.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.