Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Abduction

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Abduction

    There have been over 70 views of the Postural Restoration thread without another comment so it’s probably time to move on.

    When conclusive evidence for a specific, relevant and accurate essential diagnosis is hard to find we cannot simply follow the typical inductive or deductive processes of reasoning we are used to, but rather must include the logical inferences of abduction detailed in Discovery and Abduction on my site. I would like to see whether others have something to add to this.

    I have some thoughts but I’ll wait.
    Barrett L. Dorko

  • #2
    Barrett,

    The is a dead link in your file => http://www.faseb.org/opa/pylori/pylori.html which may be replaced by this one http://opa.faseb.org/pdf/pylori.pdf. I made a pdf version of your essay with a working one. And I dowloaded the pdf about Helicobacter.
    Attached Files
    Last edited by bernard; 16-06-2006, 08:06 AM.
    Simplicity is the ultimate sophistication. L VINCI
    We are to admit no more causes of natural things than such as are both true and sufficient to explain their appearances. I NEWTON

    Everything should be made as simple as possible, but not a bit simpler.
    If you can't explain it simply, you don't understand it well enough. Albert Einstein
    bernard

    Comment


    • #3
      I did some more Ix on de/in/abduction; lots of papers comparing the three in google.
      Based on Peirce's (sic) work, Dr Chong Ho Yu writes:

      Neither deduction or induction can help us to unveil the internal structure of meaning.
      Which I take to imply understanding.

      Deduction..cannot lead to new knowledge (on its own)*
      Induction.. is inconclusive in infinite time
      Abduction is not symbolic logic but critical thinking.
      *my parenthesis

      What I hope to do is play around with examples of the three as they relate to physiotherapy practice and research. More later...

      Cannot type the link as it has squiggles.

      nari

      Comment


      • #4
        Thank you Bernard. And Nari, some wonderfully succinct comments there.

        From my essay:

        Abductive reasoning follows the following pattern:

        Some phenomena P is observed.

        P would be explicable if H were true.

        Hence there is reason to think that H is true.


        In other words, the scientist confronts puzzles that arise naturally during the course of their work, thinking about them in light of their intimate knowledge of the system and then they make a creative leap of the imagination to say, “This would all make sense if H were true.”

        Using the formula above, if "P" is spreading pain, spontaneous pain, tingling and numbness, alteration with position and use and autonomic disturbances, well "H" can't be posture or asymmetry or weakness or any sort of localized injury - it has to be something else.

        To me, the consequences of an abnormal neurodynamic are so commonly present in cases of persistant discomfort that every day I am further convinced that it is by far the most likely essential diagnosis appropriate for my patients.

        Is there another condition that would fulfill "P"? Isn't abduction the best way to reach this conclusion?
        Barrett L. Dorko

        Comment


        • #5
          Hi Barrett,
          I love the last 2 lines of that essay!

          I had a conversation yesterday with a co-worker who, after attending a workshop this weekend by a well known orthopaedic manual therapy certifying group out here, told me that her instructor "sure didn't have nice things to say about your nerve stuff."

          She explained that he thought these things were explained by a list of various other tissue involvement. I made the argument "why doesn't everyone with abnormal posture have pain then?" and started to talk a bit about the nature of the nervous system. At this point she broke in and said, "they just are big into science, and will always have trouble with the artistic side of PT."

          I think this is part of the reason why so many PTs have trouble or issue with pain physiology and the role of the nervous system outside of being another tissue. It is not mechanical and does require some abductive reasoning. I wonder if they would call anything that isn't in/deductive as "artsy?"

          Cory
          Cory Blickenstaff, PT, OCS

          Pain Science and Sensibility Podcast
          Leaps and Bounds Blog
          My youtube channel

          Comment


          • #6
            Cory

            I find that an amazing statement; it implies they are not into science, but what looks good or feels good. I thought the USA was big on EBP...but perhaps, scared off with abductive reasoning because it seems to be outside EBP, are stuck with in/deduction.

            Did you get the feeling that you were not being listened to?

            Nari

            Comment


            • #7
              Cory,

              Please warn your co-worker not to attend my course. I'll probably end up making her cry.

              It is also common for people to complain that I lack any appreciation for science as they understand it, that I'm too "intuitive." Next thing you know they're going to complain about my hair.

              It's hard for the manual sorts to understand that problems that are truly neurologic can mimic orthopedic ones. This changes many things, not the least of which is the manual approach required.

              Tell your colleague to watch a few episodes of House on Fox TV. He uses abduction all the time. His manner is even worse than mine - something I've always found comforting.
              Barrett L. Dorko

              Comment


              • #8
                Cory

                I realised, after a second reading, that I misunderstood what your colleague was saying - it was rather that the manual/orthopaedic guys were into science and the neuronuts were 'artsy' - sorry about that.

                Good grief.

                So the brain is artsy, while fascia, ligament bone and muscle are "real" science. Real because these structures can be prodded and poked at, imaged, and given a life of their own without any input from the brain.
                Deduction and induction analysis..

                Yikes. It is worse than I thought....

                Nari

                Comment


                • #9
                  Way, way worse that you ever dreamed Nari.
                  Diane
                  www.dermoneuromodulation.com
                  SensibleSolutionsPhysiotherapy
                  HumanAntiGravitySuit blog
                  Neurotonics PT Teamblog
                  Canadian Physiotherapy Pain Science Division (Archived newsletters, paincasts)
                  Canadian Physiotherapy Association Pain Science Division Facebook page
                  @PainPhysiosCan
                  WCPT PhysiotherapyPainNetwork on Facebook
                  @WCPTPTPN
                  Neuroscience and Pain Science for Manual PTs Facebook page

                  @dfjpt
                  SomaSimple on Facebook
                  @somasimple

                  "Rene Descartes was very very smart, but as it turned out, he was wrong." ~Lorimer Moseley

                  “Comment is free, but the facts are sacred.” ~Charles Prestwich Scott, nephew of founder and editor (1872-1929) of The Guardian , in a 1921 Centenary editorial

                  “If you make people think they're thinking, they'll love you, but if you really make them think, they'll hate you." ~Don Marquis

                  "In times of change, learners inherit the earth, while the learned find themselves beautifully equipped to deal with a world that no longer exists" ~Roland Barth

                  "Doubt is not a pleasant mental state, but certainty is a ridiculous one."~Voltaire

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    I have been playing around with ab/de/induction in reference to common clinical conditions that we all see at some time or the other, to try and sort out the clinical reasoning process. There are other folk here online that can do this sort of thing better, I know, but these snippets came to mind:

                    What are the processes of logic for these:

                    The use of McKenzie's principles for severe LBP with peripheral pain and paraesthesia:

                    Pain increases with restricted flexion, no pain with restricted extension. Repeated extension leads to slow resolution over some weeks. The NP has 'returned' to where it is supposed to be. Thus, the method works. Induction, generating empirical laws.

                    McConnell's routine for PFS:

                    Physical observation that the patella tracks anormally (sic). VMO is a bit shrunken. Taping provides a change in tracking path, and VMO is strengthened by global and local exercise. Pain reduces - therefore it is the Q angle and a weak VMO that caused the problems, including the hip and foot. ???

                    Impingement in shoulder:

                    Zillions of tests to pinpoint a single cause. (Usually a bony one, or a tear in RC or both) Clinically, improvement can occur with complex exercises. Therefore specific strength restoration solved the dysfunction. ???

                    None of these simplified examples suggests abduction.
                    All of the above can be managed in terms of an abnormal neurodynamic approach, not exclusively via SC, without acknowledgement of other tissues in the first instance. General exercises and improving fitness certainly can follow after pain is managed first.

                    Comments?

                    Nari

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      I've had several discussions with this co-worker. There are, as always, other factors at play here. The biggest of which is a fear of change.

                      Nari, I think you are right. If they can't see it, touch it, scan it then it must be bogus, or touchy feely/artsy. I think a lot of PTs will classify what they see mechanically and then label the rest as psychosocial and therefore not in our realm. An easy excuse to not have to reason abductively?

                      Cory
                      Cory Blickenstaff, PT, OCS

                      Pain Science and Sensibility Podcast
                      Leaps and Bounds Blog
                      My youtube channel

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        I was going to comment on this last night, but sometimes I sound like a broken record on this subject. People are different. There are those who have an aptitude, and hence a preference for inductive reasoning, and those who have an aptitude for deductive reasoning. While a deducer can use inductive reasoning they use a deductive process to understand it. The can't understand abductive reasoning at all, because it is contrary to deductive reasoning. To them, abductive reasoning means "guessing".

                        I discussed this before in terms of personality type, in/abductive reasoning is an open ended process, deductive is close ended. We can only really be comfortable with one of these, even if we are able to use both. The people who choose to inhabit forums such as this one, who find theory and philosophy, allegory and analogy, in short; open endedness, useful and interesting will be open to ideas expressed here. It's no coincidence that the neurological viewpoint is more evident to these types, since deductive reasoning doesn't get you far enough on this road.

                        I've also noticed that many viewpoints are essentially seeing and saying the same thing, and communicating them in ways that seem to contradict each other. That is how I see many of the debates on these forums.

                        The truth is often found in a fine line down the middle, but often an issue that appears to be dichotomous is actually more like an unfinished circle, with the extremes at either end almost looped around to touch each other, but instead of trying to look for the similarity in the small gap that separates them they look over the vast distance that makes up the rest of the almost finished circle.

                        Or maybe it is more like a Mobius strip, with points that appear to be on different sides of the strip, but if one connects all the points, one realizes there is no "opposite" side.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Randy,

                          I appreciate your thoughts here and agree with some, especially when you say that "people are different." No doubt.

                          But our differences, including the way we see things, doesn't change the fact that some investigate everything that comes along using Occam's Razor and a keen appreciation for biologic plausibility - to say nothing of physical law - and others find something they're comfortable with and lie down there. I'm a committed skeptic and thus obligated to investigate carefully anything another offers. Believe me, it's a lot of work.

                          Induction, deduction, manipulation, strengthening regimens, postural instruction, traction devices, TENS, most modalities of heat or cold application along with many other traditional methods of thinking and practice have one thing in common - an ignorance of recent neurobiologic discovery. I say this because I've spoken individually to hundreds of therapists who think and practice this way and, at most, their familiarity with the subject is that they've heard David Butler's name. I'm not making this up.

                          When therapists know next to nothing about neurobiology as it exists today they simply aren't going to take the time to look for an answer there.

                          Abductive reasoning doesn't require an entirely new way of seeing things and we use it regularly. An example: Don't see the morning paper? Well, if the paperboy is sick that would explain it. But other explanations can come to mind that would make sense of this and each should be considered until the solution is discovered. If we think our first guess is always right, well, we won't look in the bushes.

                          And that's the key to understanding this: in/deductive reasoning tends to create a reason for what is seen and then attempts to make our observations fit that premise. Abduction asks questions - "If a certain thing is present, what might further testing reveal? What are the appropriate questions to ask?"

                          Ultimately, in/deduction follows a form that adheres to some condition we've imagined to be present. In short we create it. Abuduction discovers the condition through further and less-biased means.
                          Last edited by Barrett Dorko; 17-06-2006, 03:14 PM.
                          Barrett L. Dorko

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Another thought

                            After that last post I walked Buckeye for a while and I thought of this:

                            What a therapist admires in a certain kind of care or if they have a personality variant that lends itself readily to a certain interpersonal approach, this cannot dictate what sort of problem a patient actually possesses.

                            I've met many former or wannabe athletes who practice as if everybody in pain simply hadn't "worked-out" enough to overcome it. Others are cheerleaders who act as if strong verbal encouragement and personal perkyness (just made up that word) would be enough to teach others how to get better. Still others are frustrated (and personally needy) psych counselors - and we know what sort of trouble that leads to.

                            If we are scientists first and foremost we need to understand that we can't create or describe the universe in the way we would prefer it to be but only, to the best of our knowledge, the way it actually is. Then we have to figure out a way of living in it without imposing our personal "belief" system upon others who aren't interested in it. To do otherwise is evangelizing. That's religion's job, I guess.

                            Not uncommonly a student will firmly say to me "I believe in good posture." I remain calm, but I always think, "Here we go again."

                            If alienation follows it has nothing to do with my demeanor, it has to do with my introduction of abductive reasoning. I know that's irritating to many. To others the subject simply is too intricate to handle and too destructive to the in/deductive conclusions they've drawn.

                            I'm convinced that's why the MFR and PRI therapists bailed out or retreated to ad hominem attacks. If I'm wrong, they need to explain how and why.
                            Barrett L. Dorko

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Could abductive thinking be regarded as the more science-based version of lateral thinking? (Cows are animals but not all animals are cows..)
                              Diane
                              www.dermoneuromodulation.com
                              SensibleSolutionsPhysiotherapy
                              HumanAntiGravitySuit blog
                              Neurotonics PT Teamblog
                              Canadian Physiotherapy Pain Science Division (Archived newsletters, paincasts)
                              Canadian Physiotherapy Association Pain Science Division Facebook page
                              @PainPhysiosCan
                              WCPT PhysiotherapyPainNetwork on Facebook
                              @WCPTPTPN
                              Neuroscience and Pain Science for Manual PTs Facebook page

                              @dfjpt
                              SomaSimple on Facebook
                              @somasimple

                              "Rene Descartes was very very smart, but as it turned out, he was wrong." ~Lorimer Moseley

                              “Comment is free, but the facts are sacred.” ~Charles Prestwich Scott, nephew of founder and editor (1872-1929) of The Guardian , in a 1921 Centenary editorial

                              “If you make people think they're thinking, they'll love you, but if you really make them think, they'll hate you." ~Don Marquis

                              "In times of change, learners inherit the earth, while the learned find themselves beautifully equipped to deal with a world that no longer exists" ~Roland Barth

                              "Doubt is not a pleasant mental state, but certainty is a ridiculous one."~Voltaire

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X