Commentary: Without Values, Complexity is Reduced to Mathematics

IF 2.1 4区 医学 Q3 HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES Journal of evaluation in clinical practice Pub Date : 2024-12-12 DOI:10.1111/jep.14263
Trisha Greenhalgh
{"title":"Commentary: Without Values, Complexity is Reduced to Mathematics","authors":"Trisha Greenhalgh","doi":"10.1111/jep.14263","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p>This commentary on Sturmberg and Mercuri's paper ‘Every Problem is Embedded in a Greater Whole’ [1] argues that those authors have approached complexity from a largely mathematical perspective, drawing on the work of Sumpter. Whilst such an approach allows us to challenge the simple linear causality assumed in randomised controlled trials, it is itself limited. Mathematical complexity can explain nonlinearity and network effects but it cannot explain human values. It overlooks, for example, how science itself is historically and culturally shaped and how values-driven misunderstandings and conflicts are inevitable when people with different world views come together to try to solve a problem. This paper argues that the mathematical version of complexity thinking is necessary but not sufficient in medical research, and that we need to enhance such thinking further with attention to human values.</p>","PeriodicalId":15997,"journal":{"name":"Journal of evaluation in clinical practice","volume":"31 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.1000,"publicationDate":"2024-12-12","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11635397/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of evaluation in clinical practice","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/jep.14263","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

This commentary on Sturmberg and Mercuri's paper ‘Every Problem is Embedded in a Greater Whole’ [1] argues that those authors have approached complexity from a largely mathematical perspective, drawing on the work of Sumpter. Whilst such an approach allows us to challenge the simple linear causality assumed in randomised controlled trials, it is itself limited. Mathematical complexity can explain nonlinearity and network effects but it cannot explain human values. It overlooks, for example, how science itself is historically and culturally shaped and how values-driven misunderstandings and conflicts are inevitable when people with different world views come together to try to solve a problem. This paper argues that the mathematical version of complexity thinking is necessary but not sufficient in medical research, and that we need to enhance such thinking further with attention to human values.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
评论:没有价值,复杂性就沦为数学。
这篇对Sturmberg和Mercuri的论文“每个问题都嵌入在一个更大的整体中”的评论认为,这些作者从很大程度上从数学的角度看待复杂性,借鉴了Sumpter的工作。虽然这种方法允许我们挑战随机对照试验中假设的简单线性因果关系,但它本身是有限的。数学复杂性可以解释非线性和网络效应,但不能解释人的价值。例如,它忽略了科学本身是如何在历史和文化上形成的,以及当持不同世界观的人聚在一起试图解决一个问题时,价值观驱动的误解和冲突是如何不可避免的。本文认为,复杂性思维的数学版本在医学研究中是必要的,但不是充分的,我们需要在关注人类价值的同时进一步加强这种思维。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
4.80
自引率
4.20%
发文量
143
审稿时长
3-8 weeks
期刊介绍: The Journal of Evaluation in Clinical Practice aims to promote the evaluation and development of clinical practice across medicine, nursing and the allied health professions. All aspects of health services research and public health policy analysis and debate are of interest to the Journal whether studied from a population-based or individual patient-centred perspective. Of particular interest to the Journal are submissions on all aspects of clinical effectiveness and efficiency including evidence-based medicine, clinical practice guidelines, clinical decision making, clinical services organisation, implementation and delivery, health economic evaluation, health process and outcome measurement and new or improved methods (conceptual and statistical) for systematic inquiry into clinical practice. Papers may take a classical quantitative or qualitative approach to investigation (or may utilise both techniques) or may take the form of learned essays, structured/systematic reviews and critiques.
期刊最新文献
The Experience of Setting up a Vascular Access Unit in a South European Large Hospital: The Step-by-Step Description of the First Year of Activity Evidence-Based Decision Making in Psychological Research: A Network Meta-Analysis Rehabilitation Management of Neck Pain—Development of a Diagnostic Framework Based on the Pain and Disability Drivers Management Model The Relationship Between Long Covid Symptoms and Vaccination Status in COVID-19 Survivors Parents' Medicine-Seeking Behavior and Their Beliefs About the Efficacy of Medicines
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1