When a diagnosis feels obvious, that feeling of obviousness is itself a clinical finding worth examining. The Jain doctrine of anekāntavāda — the many-sidedness of truth — holds that any single perspective on a phenomenon captures only a partial reality, and that the confident perceiver is the last to know their own blind spot. Jain logicians paired this with syādvāda, a discipline of prefacing every claim with 'from this standpoint' — not as epistemic cowardice, but as a trained cognitive habit that keeps alternative explanations metabolically alive in the mind. For a clinician, this isn't about doubting every assessment; it's about keeping one rival hypothesis deliberately warm while you work, the way a chess player maintains awareness of the line they didn't choose. The diagnosis you're most certain about today is exactly the one worth running through a second frame.

What is the opposite of the explanation you're currently treating as settled — and when did you last actively look for evidence that supports it?

Drawing from Jain Epistemology (Anekāntavāda) — Mahāvīra / Hemacandra (Jain logical tradition)