My current plans for the future include majoring in neuroscience and then medical school. Next I would like to complete my specialization in neurosurgery. A career in this profession or at least in this general area is the only thing I see myself doing. It is an extremely rewarding profession with many opportunities to help people. Looking at people with cancer and other illnesses makes you want to do something about it, for example my mother had cancer. Experiences like this are truly enlightening. The combination of this and my curriculum during high school is what convinced me that this is what I should do with my life: Science classes are the only ones during high school that I truly enjoyed. In everyday life logic is important and can be very useful, but in the medical field it is vitally important. Cause-and-effect relationships are everywhere, but they are especially evident in this profession. Knowing how to use these relationships could make your job a lot easier or, more importantly, it could save someone's life. Say no to plagiarism. Get a tailor-made essay on "Why Violent Video Games Shouldn't Be Banned"? Get an Original Essay Causality is the first method to consider because it is the simplest method and is essential to understanding the rest of the methods. Cause is defined as a set of conditions that determine an effect. This effect can sometimes be desirable and other times extremely undesirable. The effect, however, depends greatly on the multiple variables that may be involved in the situation. For example, if a car drives on a very icy road and ends up in a ditch, most people would blame the icy road. However, if we start to consider other variables, entering a ditch could be the effect of incorrect braking or reckless driving. This also applies to the career I want. If you are performing surgery and cut off a few pieces with your scalp, a lot of damage can happen. For this reason, if something goes wrong it is generally believed that the doctor is to blame, but in reality it could be due to the thickness of the tissue or one of many other variables, so if less pressure was applied to the thinner tissue the same problem could occur. they never occurred. This network that takes into account all possible variables is called a random network. As you can see from the examples, changing various variables can lead to many different results. So by applying various amounts of pressure you can determine the amount of pressure that is safe on a cadaver before actually performing the surgery. In addition to all the necessary conditions for the situation, there are also many unnecessary conditions. Some unnecessary conditions include the time of day or the patient's personality traits. These are variables that should be eliminated to have a set of necessary and sufficient conditions. The doctor with the scalpel is reported as the cause to establish the normal state of a system. A normal state is found through historical information about an object. So in this case the patient's brain was in its normal state before the scalpel entered it because it was always like that in the past. After the scalpel stabs the brain, the brain enters its abnormal state, which is a drastic change in the normal state regarding an object. A change of state is a very common event. For example, a rock breaking a window is changing the window from a normal state to an abnormal state or when a patient gets sick it changes from a normal state to anabnormal state. Returning to the idea of ​​cause, we add two new terms: precipitating cause and remote cause. A precipitating cause is the object or event directly involved in bringing about an effect. A remote cause is something that is connected to the precipitating cause by a chain of events. In the case of the rock and the window, the precipitating cause is the rock, but the remote cause could be the person who dared to hit the window. In surgery any mistakes would be mine, but a remote cause could be lack of sleep if someone kept me up all night. Being able to apply everything related to causality is a useful tool that can lead to doing your job faster and with fewer errors. John Stuart Mills promoted the concept of causality with his five methods of experimental investigation, also known as canons. The five methods are the method of agreement, the method of difference, the joint method of agreement and difference, the method of residuals and the method of concomitant variations. These five principles are what many people base their inductive causal arguments on. The agreement method examines two or more instances of an event to see what they have in common. This can be used to illustrate someone's personal tastes. Let's say you listen to a piccolo and you don't like it, then you listen to a trombone and you like it, then you listen to a cell phone and you don't like it, then you like the French horn. From this set of conditions you can conclude that the person in question likes brass instruments because this is what all the instruments he prefers have in common. In the medical field you may have multiple patients coming in with the same disease and understanding what they all have in common could be the key to curing their disease by finding the cause. For example, they may have eaten all the same foods, worked at the same place, or taken the same pills. By finding out what they all have in common it is possible to deduce the cause of the disease. However, this method is not conclusive because the three patients may have other things in common that are overlooked. Maybe they could have eaten with dirty utensils. There is also the possibility that two different things cause the disease, and not the one thing – the same food – that they all had in common. Two of them might be taking the same pills and the third works with dangerous chemicals. In this case these two conditions can cause the disease even though the third condition is what they might all have in common. In cases like this, basic information about various conditions can help a lot. This is why it is very important to obtain a complete medical history of every new patient who is admitted. The difference method is similar to the method agreement method but instead of looking for instances of a common event, we look for instances of a non-common event. If a person drives a group of people to the hospital after having food poisoning after eating at a restaurant, it is possible to find out what everyone ate, even the driver who does not have food poisoning. Suppose that everyone ate steak, vegetables, and red wine, and that everyone except the person without food poisoning ate french fries, one can conclude that the french fries were the cause of the food poisoning. This is because we are looking for a single condition that was present when the effect occurred and that was absent when the effect did not occur. This method provides a sufficient condition but is not yet conclusive, as other possibilities could have been ignored or overlooked. The joint agreement and difference method combines the agreement method and the difference method. If two or more cases of an event have only one thing in common, while caseswhere it does not occur they all share the absence of that thing, then the item is a probable cause. This method could be very useful in surgery. If you are operating on a patient with a problem and you need to figure out which of five different nerves solves the problem. In this case you would think of past patients with the same and similar problems. Then you could make a graph of the various patients in the past and which nerves, once tampered with, solved the problem and which nerves did not. From this chart you would look for people who had the same disease and what nerves could be used to solve the problem they all had in common. Then you would look for all the people with other diseases and check to see if all their diseases cannot be repaired by the nerve used to cure other people's disease. If such a case occurred, you would know which nerve you need to manipulate to resolve the disease. The Joint method has a much higher chance of being correct than using either of the first two methods alone. The joint method allows us to state that the nerve problem was a necessary and not sufficient condition for the disease. Mill's fourth canon is the method of residues, which subtracts from a complex set of events those parts that already have known causes. The theory is that what remains – the “residue” – is a probable cause of the remaining effect. This method is very effective in the medical field and is the reason why the patient's medical history is collected. Suppose a patient who comes in has a headache, is vomiting and has a rash, the first thing to do would be to find out what he ate last. Let's say they ate a rare steak, chips, vegetables, cake, ice cream and coffee, you can use this list of foods and background knowledge to figure out which food caused which problem. If patients sometimes get headaches from ice cream, one might infer that the headache is due to the ice cream. So you may find that the patient has never eaten cake before, so the best conclusion is probably that the patient is allergic to an ingredient in the cake, which is most likely causing the rash. So, regarding vomiting, among the foods listed the patient eating a rare steak is most likely the cause of the vomiting because it may have been undercooked and caused food poisoning. This method relies primarily on inference, but can still be a useful tool for determining what to test and how to test it. The fifth and final canon is the method of concomitant variations. This method looks for two factors that vary together. This essentially means that if a change in one part of an event accompanies a change in another part of the event, then the two parts are probably causally connected. To do this we look for correlations: a correspondence between two sets of objects, events, or data sets. A good way to symbolize this would be to say that ABC occurs together with XY Z. A± BC results in X± YZ, where ± represents a shift. So A and X are causally connected. In other words, let's say you are in a car and you are accelerating quickly, you may notice a strange noise. When you take your foot off the pedal you will notice that the sound disappears. So you might decide to vary the pressure on the pedal to see how the noise varies in volume and intensity depending on the amount of pressure. This would be a concomitant variation. This could be very useful as a doctor too. If a patient starts taking a certain dose of pills to get better and other patients take other pills to try to get better, you can compare who got better faster to see which dose is the most effective dose for.