Hostname: page-component-745bb68f8f-mzp66 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-01-30T23:40:20.765Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Shattering the Myth of Semmelweis

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 January 2022

Dana Tulodziecki
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The case of Semmelweis has been well known since Hempel. More recently, it has been revived by Peter Lipton, Donald Gillies, Alexander Bird, Alex Broadbent, and Raphael Scholl. While these accounts differ on what exactly the case of Semmelweis shows, they all agree that Semmelweis was an excellent reasoner. This widespread agreement has also given rise to a puzzle: why Semmelweis’s views were rejected for so long. I aim to dissolve both this puzzle and the standard view of Semmelweis by showing that, contrary to prevailing opinion, Semmelweis was not the excellent reasoner he has been assumed to be.

Type
General Philosophy of Science
Information
Philosophy of Science , Volume 80 , Issue 5 , December 2013 , pp. 1065 - 1075
Copyright
Copyright © The Philosophy of Science Association

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Footnotes

†

Many thanks to the Center for Philosophy of Science (University of Pittsburgh) for a visiting fellowship for 2011–12, during which I wrote this article. I would also like to thank Bob Batterman, Uljana Feest, John Norton, Philip Robbins, Miriam Solomon (who first suggested I take another look at Semmelweis), Adrian Wüthrich, Alison Wylie, and audiences at the Center and the PSA 2012.

References

Bird, Alexander. 2010. “Eliminative Abduction: Examples from Medicine.” Studies in History and Philosophy of Science 41:345–52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Broadbent, Alex. 2009. “Causation and Models of Disease in Epidemiology.” Studies in History and Philosophy of Biological and Biomedical Sciences 40:302–11.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Carter, Codell K. 1983. Translator’s introduction. In Semmelweis, 1861/1983, 3–58.Google Scholar
Gillies, Donald. 2005. “Hempelian and Kuhnian Approaches in the Philosophy of Medicine: The Semmelweis Case.” Studies in History and Philosophy of Biological and Biomedical Sciences 36:159–81.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hamlin, Christopher. 1992. “Predisposing Causes and Public Health in Early Nineteenth-Century Medical Thought.” Social History of Medicine 5:43–70.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hempel, Carl G. 1966. Philosophy of Natural Science. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.Google Scholar
Lipton, Peter. 1991/2004. Inference to the Best Explanation. London: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Loudon, Irvine. 1992. Death in Childbirth. Oxford: Clarendon.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Scholl, Raphael. 2013. “Causal Inference, Mechanisms, and the Semmelweis Case.” Studies in History and Philosophy of Science 44:66–76.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Semmelweis, Ignaz. 1861/1983. The Etiology, Concept, and Prophylaxis of Childbed Fever. ed. and trans. Codell Carter, K.. Madison: University of Wisconsin Press.Google Scholar
Simpson, James Young. 1850. “The Analogy between Puerperal and Surgical Fever.” In Childbed Fever: A Documentary History, ed. Loudon, Irvine. New York: Garland.Google Scholar
Tulodziecki, Dana. Forthcoming. “Epistemic Virtues and the Success of Science.” In Virtue Scientia, ed. Abrol Fairweather. New York: Synthese Library, Springer.Google Scholar