This Article  • Full text  • PDF  • Reply to article  • Send to a friend  • Save in My Folder  • Save to citation manager  • Permissions  Citing Articles  • Citing articles on ISI (1)  • Contact me when this article is cited  Related Content  • Similar articles in this journal

	Since this article does not have an abstract, we have provided the first 150 words of the full text and any section headings.

We were pleased to read the article by Moncayo et al¹ and the editorial by Caplan² in the August issue of the ARCHIVES. The topic of concurrent mechanisms for stroke is one on which we have done pioneering work in the last 4 years.^{3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9} We therefore take issue with the statement of Moncayo et al that "Multiple potential causes of cerebral infarct seem rather uncommon, although the subject has not been systematically investigated."

There is a theoretical background for this controversy that has been overlooked by physicians because the relevant discussions have taken place in the scientific but nonmedical literature.^{10, 11, 12, 13} First, there is the differentiation between inductive and deductive methods of diagnostic reasoning. The inductive diagnostic method is consistent with the current approach of evidence-based medicine and the linear sequential stop at the first positive test result (using an algorithm) for identification of stroke mechanism (cause or subtype).^{14, 15} The linear . . . [Full Text of this Article]