Hypothetically, evidence and theory are alike. However, they are not the same in practice. Evidence-based practice has acquired eminence over most theoretical techniques in a number of fields, particularly in the sphere of health care. Both practices share the mutual objective of making the correct decisions and finding the most efficient solution for an identified difficulty. However, the two practices posses some underlying philosophical distinctions (Gilles, 1998).
The distinction between the two practices can be traced to an ancient rift frequently found in philosophy and science, rationalism versus empiricism. Rationalists claimed that their senses are limited and that they place all their trust in reasons. Contrariwise, empiricists assert that sense proficiency is the basis of all our perceptions and knowledge. The positions of empiricists were not as extreme as those of the rationalists.
Since experts frequently have distinct opinions, guided treatments can differ inconsistently from place to place one or medic to another, for persons with the same condition. The consequence of proof based practice is homogenizing health care practices using scientific and the best evidence accessible.
It should be noted that evidence and theory are not at all discordant; there is abundant literature about evidence-based theory-guided practices that integrate both. Good medics use both external available evidence together with individual and neither alone is sufficient. Without clinical proficiency, practice is exposed to becoming oppressed by evidence. Without present best evidence, practice is at risk of becoming hastily outdated, to the disadvantage of patients.
Randomized controlled trials are the values of evidence-based practice. At times, a medic may face a predicament which does not have prior solutions. These trials may in reality be unpractical or undesirable for some specific conditions or settings because of their severity or rarity (Gilles, 1998). In these situations, a hypothetical approach may be appropriate.
Link between Concepts and Theories
The term concept is defined varying by distinct sources. Philosophers and others agree that the term is formed from proficiency and other preexisting mental content by pensiveness and other operations in the brain. The English word theory was drawn from a term in philosophy in ancient Greek. Its direct translation means "looking at” or “viewing” and refers to speculation or contemplation in contrast to action (Harkings, 1996).
A concept can be described as a hypothetical summary of traits that we recognize possessing something in common. People create them with the key objective of communication and efficiency. In relation to this, a theory contains a set of basic ideas and axioms as the basis and the structure of the theory constitutes of logically interconnected, factually supportable propositions. A real slack meaning of the term is part of study of a discipline that is not practical. The two terms posses the trait of total uncertainty.
Concepts can be commonly considered as being at an inferior level of pensiveness than theories but a crucial part of any theory, given that theories originate from concepts. Concepts have no set denotation and it is up to individuals to describe what we imply by the term. As a result of this, anyone can define a concept in a way that they wish. Consequently, concept would become worthless unless all individuals agree on a mutual description. This would erase the fact that the term which largely influences the term theory to become insignificant (Harkings, 1996).
Gilles Fauconnier, M. T. (1998). Conceptual Integration Networks. In M. T. Gilles
Fauconnier, Conceptual Integration Networks (pp. 133-187). Cognitive Science.
Hawking, S. (1996). The Illustrated A Brief History of Time. In S. Hawking, The Illustrated A Brief History of Time (p. 15). New York: Bantam Books.