alireza monajemi

Based on the theory of action, Houkes and Vermaas developed the use-plan theory in the philosophy of technology. This theory proposes that plans are a series of actions taken to achieve a goal, and use-plans are plans involve at least one artifact to achieve a goal. Designing is primarily constructing and communicating use-plans rather than artifacts. The function of artifacts is determined based on the use-plan in which they are used. The designer should communicate with the user and reconstructsruct the use-plan according to the context and the user's skills. The use-plan should be evaluated based on the central standard of effectiveness and other standards such as efficiency, safety, and sustainability.While this theory has an adequate foundation, there are several issues with it: firstly, the ontological status of the use-plan is unclear. Secondly, it presupposes a justificationist conception of knowledge, which we believe is flawed. Finally, the theory does not provide an explanation for the improvement of use-plan.

The evaluation of research in the humanities is a controversial topic. In Iran, this debate is often framed in terms of the International Scientific Index (ISI) and paper production. Two main groups can be identified in this debate. One group believes that the emphasis on articles and the ISI leads to the quantification of humanities research, which ultimately damages the quality of the research. The other group believes that common scientometric methods are a reliable and precise standard for all fields, and that the humanities should adapt to these methods. The debate has been characterized by polemical and rhetorical arguments, and its theoretical and epistemological frameworks have been imprecise and chaotic.The aim of this article is to formulate this polemical debate into an epistemological problem in the philosophy of science, so that it can be properly formulated and understood.The article is divided into three parts. First, we show that scientometrics has its roots in the work of philosophers of science. However, over time, this connection has been broken, and the positivist view of science has come to dominate. This has led to the current crisis in scientometrics.In the second part, we argue that the understanding of this crisis depends on a return to the non-positivist approach in the philosophy of science. This approach sees science as based on the research practices of a research community, rather than as a set of true propositions. By uncovering the differences between the natural sciences and the humanities, we conclude that the contemporary scientometric criteria cannot be applied to the humanities.In the third part, we argue that criticizing common scientometric methods and highlighting their crisis does not mean that the evaluation of humanities research is impossible or unattainable. However, before defining a new set of criteria, we need to conduct philosophical, anthropological, sociological, and historical studies of research communities in the humanities.

Inquiring into the relationship between technology and medicalization, particularly in the fourth wave of medicalization known as Healthism, is of utmost importance. Compared to the other waves of medicalisation, in Healthism, which is predominant and progressive today , biomedical research plays a critical role, technology is interwoven with it, and the "disease" that was at the center of the previous three waves is absent hereThese factors mean that all classical theories of medicalisation, such as Peter Conrad's, fail to understand and determine the fundamental role of technologies in healthism. This is because Conrad's account of medicalisation is disease-centric, based on the dualism between humans and technology, and focuses only on macro social, political, and economic processes that make medicalisation possible.This paper argues for the idea that the link between the philosophies of technology and medicine can provide approaches to understanding and analyzing the fourth wave of medicalization.In this paper, Healthism - is examined from a postphenomenological view of the philosophy of technology and based on the case study of self-tracking applications, focusing on technological intentionality and hermeneutic relations. it is argued that Conrad's sociological view is insufficient to determine the role of technologies in the medicalisation procesess and to understand the new wave of medicalsation.It will be shown that postphenomenology can be used to provide new insight into medicalisation and discuss the aspects of medicalisation that have often been disregarded, as post-phenomenology can explicate medicalisation on the level of individual experience from the perspective of the relationship between humans and reality, while also examining the mediating role of technologies in these relationships.

The studies of science and religion, which turned into an academic field since the 1960s, have been fortunate enough to maintain their multi-discipline-inter-discipline nature and avoid becoming disciplinary. The specialization of research fields such as "science and religion" will cause the field of discussion and debate between thinkers of different fields, including scientists, theologians, and philosophers, to become such a specialized field that no one understands their language except for a few specialists. This multidisciplinary-interdisciplinary nature can be recognized not only in the variety of topics and disciplines involved but also in the range of research methods in this field, from comparative studies to historical-philosophical analysis.

Clinical reasoning is one of the important categories in medicine and teaching it in different ways can accelerate the student's ability to approach expert professional thinking. In addition, complementary trainings, along with clinical training, can promote clinical training in pandemics and situations where contact with the patient is reduced for some reason.

This is an semi-experimental, case observation study in which the case group was trained in clinical reasoning by scenario writing method, and after the test, 2 groups were compared with KF and DTI tests. The two were identical based on their basic science test scores before the study.

In this study, 60 people in two groups of case and control (30 people in each group) were compared with DTI and KF tests. The average DTI score in the case group was 151.4±15.3 and the average score in the control group was 151.8±17.2, the scores in both the case and control groups were not significant (P-value=0.922). The KF scores were 36.3±4.5 in the control group and 30.2±8.2 in the case group, and the scores in the case group were significantly higher than the control group (P-value=0.001)

The results of the study showed that short-term scenario writing training can be effective in improving the KF score and clinical reasoning, but increasing the DTI score requires more training time.

 Clinical reasoning is the basis of all clinical activities in the health team, and diagnostic reasoning is perhaps the most critical of a physician's skills. Despite many advances, medical errors have not been reduced. Studies have shown that most diagnostic errors made in emergency rooms are cognitive errors, and anchoring error was identified as the most common cognitive error in clinical settings. This research intends to determine the frequency and compare the percentage of anchoring bias perceived among faculty members versus residents in the emergency medicine department.  

 In this quasi-experimental study, Emergency Medicine's Faculties and Residents are evaluated in clinical reasoning by nine written clinical cases. The clinical data for each clinical case was presented to the participants over three pages, based on receiving clinical and para-clinical information in real situations. At the end of each page, participants were asked to write up diagnoses. Data were analyzed using one-way ANOVA test.  The SPSS software (Version 16.0) was employed to conduct statistical tests, and a P value < 0.05 was considered to be statistically significant.   

 Seventy-seven participants of the residency program in the Emergency Medical group volunteered to participate in this study. Data showed Faculties were significantly higher in writing correct diagnoses than residents (66% vs. 41%), but the anchoring error ratio was significantly lower in residents (33% vs. 75%). In addition, the number of written diagnoses, time for writing diagnoses, and Clinical experience in faculties and residents were compared.  

 Findings showed that increasing clinical experience increased diagnostic accuracy and changed cognitive medical errors. Faculties were higher than residents in anchoring error ratio. This error could be the result of more exposure and more decision-making in the mode of heuristic or intuitive thinking in faculties.

Study the titles of body organs as well as counting them in the anatomical texts of humoural medicine indicates an important issue: in these texts and in comparison with modern anatomical texts, there is no mention of a significant number of body organs. This is while these two different conclusions are the result of the observations of the same action: the dissection of the corpse. In addition, some of these organs are visible to the naked eye, including lymphatic vessels. Therefore, the humoural physician has seen some organs in the process of dissection, but has not. According to the authors of this article, the reason for the invisibility of these organs lies in the connection between observation and theory. In short, the observation of the humoural physician's dissection practice, unlike the observation of the modern anatomist dissection practice, has been based on the humoural theory. Hence, the humoural physician, in the process of dissection, has seen organs which have a humoural function. The rest of the body organs were either not seen or reduced to a fleshy appendages.

The quality of care crisis (QCC) is one of the most crucial crises the modern medicine is confronting, as the existential and psychological needs of patients have not been addressed and satisfied. Several attempts have been made to find solutions for QCC, e.g., the Marcum's recommendation to make physicians virtuous. Most of the existing formulations for the QCC have regarded technology as one of the causes of this crisis and not part of its solution.Although the authors agree with the role of technology in creating the crisis of care to some extent, in this article we try to present the crisis of care so that medical technology is an important part of its solution. For this purpose, we analyzed QCC from the philosophical perspectives of Husserl and Borgmann and put forward a novel proposal to take account of technology in QCC. In the first step, it is discussed that the role of technology in causing the crisis of care is due to the gap between the techno-scientific world and the life-world of the patients. This formulation shows that the crisis-causing role of technology is not inherent. In the second step, it is tried to find a way to integrate technology into the solution to the crisis. In the proposed reframing, designing and applying technologies based on focal things and practices make it possible to develop technologies that are caring and are able to mitigate QCC.

After the middle of the twentieth century, symptoms gradually appeared which were collectively called the “crisis of medicine”. This crisis gave philosophy, which had been abstracted from medicine since the mid-nineteenth century, an opportunity to reflect. Medical philosophers attributed the crisis to the inflation of the scientific and technical aspects and, consequently, to the weakening of the human aspects of medicine. Therefore, reflection on the nature of medicine became one of the central issues of philosophy in medicine.In this article, I will first highlight the need to study the nature of medicine, explain the various concpetions of the nature of modern medicine - based on the dichotomy- science vs. art , and show their inadequacy and inappropriatness. Finally, I will provide a model to the nature of medicine beyond the realm of science / art. In this model, medicine is a scientific practice, based on judgment, dialogue, communication and social order. This model faces teleological, epistemological, scientific, political, and professional challenges that require serious and continuous reflection on the nature of medicine.

Medicalization, in the sense of expansion of medicine in different aspects of human life and ultimately the transformation of medicine into a tool of social control and domination, is a common interpenetration in the literature. This concept, since its inception in the mid-twentieth century, has been an exclusive critique of modern medicine, meaning that branch of medicine based on biomedical paradigm. In this article, we argue that the conceptual shortcoming of this view and the reduction of medicalization to only one medical paradigm, lead to appear medicalization in the new outfit in the name of demedicalization and with more harmful aspects. By focusing on biomedical paradigm or biomedicalization, we neglected other types of medicalization like paramedicalization or CAMization, meaning expansion of Complementary and Alternative Medicine in different aspects of human life. This negligence makes the space to misuse of medicalization for more medicalizing issues. In the following, Iranian Traditional Medicine has been examined as one of the examples of CAM. By presenting historical examples, in the contrast of common understanding of many medical sociologists, we showed that medicalization is not an exclusive concept around modern medicine and its root go back hundreds of year, not just the last hundred year and not only in the western world.

An obvious feature of the development of the philosophy of science during the past decades is an increasing specialization and fragmentation that have led to reduced impact of philosophy of science outside the sphere of its own discipline. It seems that philosophy of science and scientific research are moving away from each other. The major question of this article is how can reconnect these two?To answer this question I will try to highlight some events especially in the fields of social sciences that researchers are involved in discussions, generally related to philosophy of science, not in an abstract and isolated way, but in a way that is completely intertwined in their research practices.  Unfortunately, this phenomenon has not been properly considered by philosophers of science and has remained more as a subject in the field of social sciences, specifically research methodology. It seems that if philosophy of science enters into dialogue with social sciences, we can expect the revival of the philosophy of general science. In this article, I try to show the signs of this phenomenon in cognitive psychology. I will first turn to one of the most influential theories in the cognitive sciences, expertise theory. After reviewing the important theories of expertise and their differences, in the next step I will discuss the seemingly opposing theories in this field and their efforts to find common ground. Then I will review the current movement in cognitive psychology, which I call the “integration model” stream. After a critical review and categorization of these models, I will show that in a broader view in social science, we can realize the meta-theoretical issues that are a good room for a dialogue between philosophy of science and scientific research. In the end, I will point out the horizons that this view opens to the revival of philosophy of general science.

؟One of the two major crises modern medicine is confronting with is the quality-of-care crisis (QCC); The QCC is the result of the ignorance of the existential and psychological needs of patients by doctors, nurses, and caregivers. In this paper, we aim to review this crisis and the importance of taking it into consideration by caregivers. We also develop a framework, called The Phronetic Model for Care, for an ideal care practice that can be used as a basis for training caregivers and this could be a major step to overcome QCC

This study has been written using the Critical Review method and the proposed steps by Carnwell & Daly to design a conceptual model. The concepts and resources related to the QCC have been searched for in databases including Google Scholar, Web of Science, PubMed, ERIC, Elsevier, and PhilPapers with the keywords medical practice, healthcare practice, critical reflection, empathy, phronesis, practical wisdom, reflective practice and the latest and most cited papers and books have been selected and read.

This study has been written using the Critical Review method and the proposed steps by Carnwell & Daly to design a conceptual model. The concepts and resources related to the QCC have been searched for in databases including Google Scholar, Web of Science, PubMed, ERIC, Elsevier, and PhilPapers with the keywords medical practice, healthcare practice, critical reflection, empathy, phronesis, practical wisdom, reflective practice and the latest and most cited papers and books have been selected and read.

Regarding that one of the most important steps to alleviate QCC is rethinking the concept of QCC and its various components, the proposed framework for practicing care can be used as a basis for teaching the skills required by caregivers and their proper training in order to emancipate from QCC.

When Greek thinkers sought to find natural reasons for what was happening around them and to abandon transcendental ideas such as the intervention of spirits and divine reproach, these efforts were made by Hippocrates in medicine. Hippocrates removed the concepts of superstition, magic, and religion from medicine. He rejected the belief of his contemporaries that the disease was caused by the vengeful gods, and instead stated that every disease has a natural cause, and that if you find the natural cause, you can cure the disease.Therefore, the problem of the present study is to study the medical theory of Hippocrates and to answer the question of how did Hippocrates remove the transcendental causes from medicine and what natural causes replaced them? For this purpose, the article consists of four parts: in the first part, the theory of quadruple mixing, which is the basis of Hippocratic medical theory, and in the second part, Hippocrates' view of the concept of health and in the third part, the concept of disease and classification of diseases and Pathogens have been studied and in the final part of the treatment and treatment of diseases from the point of view of Hippocrates. This research has been done by library method and relying on works attributed to Hippocrates. An examination of the works of Hippocrates shows that in medical reconstruction, Hippocrates established a medical system independent of the supernatural and based on natural philosophy. Hippocrates' medicine, in addition to being based on reason, was patient-centered rather than disease-oriented and focused more on observation and experience. Instead of metamaterial factors, he considered the causes of diseases as two types of internal and external factors. Internal factors meant in vivo mixing and external factors meant environmental factors and a person's lifestyle. He also categorized diseases in order to better understand and treat diseases: acute and chronic, endemic or endemic, and epidemic.

The unpreparedness to deal with the Corona pandemic and the inadequacy of interventions and measures to control that world has created a critical situation. In this article based on biopolitical analytics, I want to show why we stand at this point and that unpreparedness and inadequacy have rooted in the structure of the epidemic (objects, sciences, and institutions). In this analysis, I will focus on the objects, sciences and institutions related to the structure of the epidemic and scrutinize how the structure of the epidemic has caused invisibility of objects such as the city, citizenship and society, which has led to the hiddenness of the related sciences and institutions. Medicalization of the health and the priority of epidemiology have been the result of this historical process. It seems that the revival of urban medicine and serious attention to health humanities as a potential link between biomedical sciences, politics and society can open up new horizons.

The Olympiad for Medical Sciences Students has been held in the field of medical humanities for several years in Iran. This year, with the outbreak of the corona pandemic, the question arose as to whether this student competition could be adapted to this new and complex situation. This article will explain the joint efforts of the scientific committee and biomedical students to address this challenge. The main question we had to answer was whether the medical humanities have anything to say in the face of the corona pandemic. The danger we felt was that as the corona pandemic crisis deepened, the biomedical narrative would fill the entire discourse, and this would ultimately lead to the ineffectiveness of corona interventions and policies. This paper shows how these questions were addressed through an action research that the scientific committee, as an interdisciplinary team, and several groups of medical students have worked on together. The result showed that criticism of classical medical humanities, return to the roots of interdisciplinarity, attention to the role of technology, and the crucial role of biopolitics are the neglected aspects of the Covid 19 pandemic.

"Medical humanities" seems to be a paradoxical phrase primarily. How these two distinct and separate fileds of knowledge have been linked is due to the problematic state of medicine. In the first part of the article, we will analyze medical humanities based on the controversies in this field, and in the second part, the critical meta-medical studies will be proposed as an alternative to medical humanities. To answer the first question, we have used the controversies studies. The contemporary trend of medical humanities began with the critique of modern medicine in the late sixties and early seventies, which was concerned with the growing development of biomedical sciences and dehumanization of medicine. The pioneers in this field found a solution that could be linking the humanities to the field of medicine. The medical humanities has established by reforming the curricula of many medical schools , and gradually expanded to clinical research and clinical practice. A careful review and analysis of medical humanities literature identified five main issues in surface layer: broad and different conceptions and definitions, discipline vs. field, multidisciplinary vs. interdisciplinary, medical humanities vs. health humanities, classical humanities vs. critical humanities and medical humanities vs. medical philosophy. In the final analysis in the deep layer, two elements can be distinguished: one is dichotomies and the other is drives or processes. Dichotomies can be classified into several general groups: methodological (instrumental-critical and concrete-integrated), epustemological (natural sciences-humanities, specialist-commoners), ontological (human-human sciences, art-science) and praxiological (health vs. clinical, care vs. cure). In the case of drives or processes, we can mention medicaliztion, bureaucratization, technicalization, ethicization, scientificization, specialization, individualization. But as we mentioned in the final analysis, both approaches has suffered from serious limitations. In the second part of the article, two questions will be addressed: What is the defensible critical approach in medical / health sciences and what are the proposed critical meta-medical studies as an alternative to medical / health sciences? Modern medicine and humanities and social sciences have the same origins, and therefore sociology, psychology, etc., as medical humanities, cannot humanize medicine. Hence, a critical theory should be considered that critiques both social sciences and medicine at the same time; Like Foucault, Gadamer and Habermas. Critical meta-medical studies, such as the cross-disciplinary umbrella, pay attention to the fundamental questions of medicine and, of course, inforce the discipline to a critical appraoch, both among themselves and towards the goal of medicine.

Reading medical texts is always a serious challenge for medical students because they are expected to be able to apply it in clinical practice. Studies show that medical students fail to use the content of medical texts in clinical practice. In many cases, this failure is attributed to incomplete or incorrect learning of the contents of the books, and the lack of a suitable guide for better and more effective reading of medical resources. The question addressed in this article is how medical texts should be read in order to be used in daily clinical practice. This article will be divided into two parts. In the first part, an attempt is made to address theoretical foundations based on illness script theory. In the second part, by quoting a part of a medical reference book, we try to show how medical texts can be read effectively.