Marr and Reductionism

David Marr's three-level method for completely understanding a cognitive system and the importance he attaches to the computational level are so familiar as to scarcely need repeating. Fewer seem to recognize that Marr defends his famous method by criticizing the “reductionistic approach.” This sets up a more interesting relationship between Marr and reductionism than is usually acknowledged. I argue that Marr was correct in his criticism of the reductionists of his time—they were only describing (cellular activity), not explaining (cognitive functions). But a careful metascientific account of reductionistic neuroscience over the past two decades reveals that Marr's criticisms no longer have force. Contemporary neuroscience now explains cognition directly, although in a fashion—causal-mechanistically—quite different than Marr recommended. So while Marr was correct to reject the reductionism of his day and offer an alternative method for genuinely explaining cognition, contemporary cognitive scientists now owe us a new defense of Marr's famous method and the advantages of its explanations over the type now pursued successfully in current reductionist neuroscience. There are familiar reasons for thinking that this debt will not be paid easily.     

分诊安全管理结合风险管理提高急诊科护理质量评分的作用分析

目的探讨分诊安全管理结合风险管理提高急诊科护理质量评分的作用。方法该院于2018年6月起加强对急诊科的分诊安全管理结合风险管理,以于2017年6月—2019年6月在该院急诊科就诊的患者为研究对象,评价管理策略实施前后护理风险发生率、护理质量评分以及患者满意度等评价指标变化情况。结果实施后基础护理、实践操作、消毒隔离、急救药品、护理文件方面的护理质量评分均较实施前显著提高(P<0.05);实施后护理差错、护理缺陷、护理投诉的发生率分别为0.26%、0.58%、0.19%,均较实施前显著降低(P<0.05);实施后护理总满意率为94.92%,较实施前显著提高(P<0.05)。结论分诊安全管理结合风险管理有效提高了急诊科护理质量,提升了患者满意度,减少了护理风险事件的发生。