The Supreme Court, bastion of conservatism

[Northwestcoug]

What!? This is absolutely not true. The Enlightenment is defined as the beginning of the scientific revolution and rediscovery of the scientific method. Of course, they didn't have all the answers, but that is what science is all about. What nonsense have you been reading?

I'm sure you'll find an isolated example somewhere before the 1800's. But JL is essentially right. You really don't see rigorous scientific method testing in medicine until the 1800's. In the field of infectious diseases, Koch's postulates and Pasteur don't enter the scene until the late 1800's. Before that, a link between microorganisms and disease was not proven.

Here, I'll give you one example before the 1800's. Jenner and the small pox vaccine. He noted that milk maids had some immunity to small pox, because they became infected with a cow pox virus. But other than this association, no causal etiology was found until later.

[Northwestcoug]

What!? This is absolutely not true. The Enlightenment is defined as the beginning of the scientific revolution and rediscovery of the scientific method. Of course, they didn't have all the answers, but that is what science is all about. What nonsense have you been reading?

I'm sure you'll find an isolated example somewhere before the 1800's. But JL is essentially right. You really don't see rigorous scientific method testing in medicine until the 1800's. In the field of infectious diseases, Koch's postulates and Pasteur don't enter the scene until the late 1800's. Before that, a link between microorganisms and disease was not proven.

Here, I'll give you one example before the 1800's. Jenner and the small pox vaccine. He noted that milk maids had some immunity to small pox, because they became infected with a cow pox virus. But other than this association, no causal etiology was found until later.

[SeattleUte]

I'm sure you'll find an isolated example somewhere before the 1800's. But JL is essentially right. You really don't see rigorous scientific method testing in medicine until the 1800's. In the field of infectious diseases, Koch's postulates and Pasteur don't enter the scene until the late 1800's. Before that, a link between microorganisms and disease was not proven.

Here, I'll give you one example before the 1800's. Jenner and the small pox vaccine. He noted that milk maids had some immunity to small pox, because they became infected with a cow pox virus. But other than this association, no causal etiology was found until later.

Just because discoveries were not made until later doesn't mean they weren't employing the scientific method. We're receiving a real time lesson in how nature may provide answers right under our noses but it takes a while for the light bulb to go on. Franklin's discovery of electric currents in lightning is an example of using the scientific method. As the links I've provide here showed, they didn't carve out medicine in their use of the scientific method. My problem is with the categorical quality of the statement that there was no scientific method in medicine until the lat 1800s--seems to be a habit JL has. He himself noted that vaccines were invented in 1796. People didn't just become woke in the late 1800s and say, "let's use the scientific method in medicine."

[Jeff Lebowski]

Just because discoveries were not made until later doesn't mean they weren't employing the scientific method. We're receiving a real time lesson in how nature may provide answers right under our noses but it takes a while for the light bulb to go on. Franklin's discovery of electric currents in lightning is an example of using the scientific method. As the links I've provide here showed, they didn't carve out medicine in their use of the scientific method. My problem is with the categorical quality of the statement that there was no scientific method in medicine until the lat 1800s--seems to be a habit JL has. He himself noted that vaccines were invented in 1796. People didn't just become woke in the late 1800s and say, "let's use the scientific method in medicine."

Classic example of you being pedantic and anal. I was talking about medicine in general. Sure you can find isolated examples earlier than that where the scientific method was used. But if the majority of medical professionals did not use it (as NWC concurs), my point stands. This is why arguably the most famous doctor in America was doing blood-letting into the 19th century.

[Jeff Lebowski]

Just because discoveries were not made until later doesn't mean they weren't employing the scientific method. We're receiving a real time lesson in how nature may provide answers right under our noses but it takes a while for the light bulb to go on. Franklin's discovery of electric currents in lightning is an example of using the scientific method. As the links I've provide here showed, they didn't carve out medicine in their use of the scientific method. My problem is with the categorical quality of the statement that there was no scientific method in medicine until the lat 1800s--seems to be a habit JL has. He himself noted that vaccines were invented in 1796. People didn't just become woke in the late 1800s and say, "let's use the scientific method in medicine."

This line made me laugh. YOU are the one arguing that once the enlightenment started, people just became woke and said, "let's use the scientific method in medicine."

[Northwestcoug]

Just because discoveries were not made until later doesn't mean they weren't employing the scientific method. We're receiving a real time lesson in how nature may provide answers right under our noses but it takes a while for the light bulb to go on. Franklin's discovery of electric currents in lightning is an example of using the scientific method. As the links I've provide here showed, they didn't carve out medicine in their use of the scientific method. My problem is with the categorical quality of the statement that there was no scientific method in medicine until the lat 1800s--seems to be a habit JL has. He himself noted that vaccines were invented in 1796. People didn't just become woke in the late 1800s and say, "let's use the scientific method in medicine."

And just for the record, the concept of vaccines existed long before this time. People were innoculating against pox-associated diseases before Jenner's time, though he was the one to make the association that exposure to cow pox conferred some immunity against small pox.

Your argument is very narrow-minded. Sure, there were smart physicians before the 1800's who were able to make reasoned associations with diseases. But the scientific method as we understand it today didn't exist until fairly recently in society. Here's Koch's postulates about infectious diseases from the 1890's. They hold up fairly well even today (though there are exceptions):

The bacteria must be present in every case of the disease.
The bacteria must be isolated from the host with the disease and grown in pure culture.
The specific disease must be reproduced when a pure culture of the bacteria is inoculated into a healthy susceptible host.
The bacteria must be recoverable from the experimentally infected host.

You just didn't see that level of scrutiny in medicine until this time.

[Jeff Lebowski]

Me waiting for SU to mansplain medical history to NWC:

[Bo Diddley]

Like many arguments here on CS, I think much of what is being argued is simply semantics.

Perhaps because it was the scientific consensus of the time?

It starts with BFM making a somewhat overgeneralized statement about scientific consensus.

Nope. The medical community didn’t even start using the scientific method until the late 1800s. Prior to that it was mainly the observational method and folklore. It was precisely the scientific method that debunked bloodletting.

Of course JL is quick to narrow down scientific consensus to mean after the Scientific Method is formalized.

Your argument is very narrow-minded.

Aren't the semantic arguments eliminating science prior to the formalized Scientific Method a more narrow view?

Just 2¢ from the cheap seats.

[SeattleUte]

And just for the record, the concept of vaccines existed long before this time. People were innoculating against pox-associated diseases before Jenner's time, though he was the one to make the association that exposure to cow pox conferred some immunity against small pox.

Your argument is very narrow-minded. Sure, there were smart physicians before the 1800's who were able to make reasoned associations with diseases. But the scientific method as we understand it today didn't exist until fairly recently in society. Here's Koch's postulates about infectious diseases from the 1890's. They hold up fairly well even today (though there are exceptions):

The bacteria must be present in every case of the disease.
The bacteria must be isolated from the host with the disease and grown in pure culture.
The specific disease must be reproduced when a pure culture of the bacteria is inoculated into a healthy susceptible host.
The bacteria must be recoverable from the experimentally infected host.

You just didn't see that level of scrutiny in medicine until this time.

I linked an essay from the Royal College of Surgeons about the subject we're discussing. We didn't need a homespun one from you.

[SCcoug]

I linked an essay from the Royal College of Surgeons about the subject we're discussing. We didn't need a homespun one from you.

lol. That read like a middle school poster contest winner on the Enlightenment. It doesn't support your claim that the scientific method was widespread in medicine. Like JL and NWC said isolated examples.

[old_gregg]

I linked an essay from the Royal College of Surgeons about the subject we're discussing. We didn't need a homespun one from you.

i mean, in what subject is seattleute not an expert these days?

[Northwestcoug]

I linked an essay from the Royal College of Surgeons about the subject we're discussing. We didn't need a homespun one from you.

Bravo, renaissance man. Care to tell us simpletons exactly what John Hunter did in the Enlightenment that so thoroughly discredits my opinion?

[BigFatMeanie]

Like many arguments here on CS, I think much of what is being argued is simply semantics.



It starts with BFM making a somewhat overgeneralized statement about scientific consensus.



Of course JL is quick to narrow down scientific consensus to mean after the Scientific Method is formalized.



Aren't the semantic arguments eliminating science prior to the formalized Scientific Method a more narrow view?

Just 2¢ from the cheap seats.

I will confess that I was specifically trolling/goading The Dude because he tends to get pretty zealous in his defense of Scientific^TM orthodoxy.

The dude responded as I was hoping. Then SeattleUte, who I've had on ignore** for years now so I only see his posts when quoted, jumped in and it took off beautifully. I love it when a plan comes together.

** I'll respond in a different thread about the posters I have on ignore and why. This thread has been jacked enough.

[Jeff Lebowski]

I will confess that I was specifically trolling/goading The Dude because he tends to get pretty zealous in his defense of Scientific^TM orthodoxy.

The dude responded as I was hoping. Then SeattleUte, who I've had on ignore** for years now so I only see his posts when quoted, jumped in and it took off beautifully. I love it when a plan comes together.

** I'll respond in a different thread about the posters I have on ignore and why. This thread has been jacked enough.

Haha. Well done.

[SeattleUte]

I will confess that I was specifically trolling/goading The Dude because he tends to get pretty zealous in his defense of Scientific^TM orthodoxy.

The dude responded as I was hoping. Then SeattleUte, who I've had on ignore** for years now so I only see his posts when quoted, jumped in and it took off beautifully. I love it when a plan comes together.

** I'll respond in a different thread about the posters I have on ignore and why. This thread has been jacked enough.

Uh, patting yourself on the back, but you’re self-deluded. I did not respond to you. Your comment about scientific consensus at the time was a heavy handed allusion to shifting opinions about Covid that wasn’t interesting. Indeed, what you post doesn’t interest me without exception. Check the annals of this board, and you’ll see that I’ve never responded to one of your posts. Not once. And I don’t have you on ignore. You’re just completely uninteresting, at least to me. You’re also a jerk.