Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

Ouch! Scott Turner on “settled science”

Share
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email

From J. Scott Turner’s Purpose and Desire:What Makes Something “Alive” and Why Modern Darwinism Has Failed to Explain It,

Traditionally, therapeutic bloodletting was justified by the need to release from the patient an excess of one vital humor that was out of balance with another. Release the excess humor, and the balance of humors would be restored, as would be the patient to a state of health. The practice, indeed so much of medical practice in those times, probably killed more patients than it helped, but never mind, it was justified by sound and venerable teaching—the science was settled, we might say today. (K751-755) – Citing: R. G. DePalma, V. W. Hayes, and L. R. Zacharski, “Bloodletting: Past and Present,” Journal of the American American College of Surgeons 205 (2007): 132–144, doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jamcollsurg

See also: Settled science: Bunk with clout.

and

Ignorance and cronyism are the only settled sciences

Comments
...so we have better standards of evidence.
Still waiting for the evolutionists to catch up.Mung
October 11, 2017
October
10
Oct
11
11
2017
07:14 AM
7
07
14
AM
PDT
One reason the analogy with blood-letting doesn't work is that our epistemology has moved on since then, so we have better standards of evidence.Bob O'H
October 11, 2017
October
10
Oct
11
11
2017
12:53 AM
12
12
53
AM
PDT
Humorism was ancient science.Aeneas Pietas
October 10, 2017
October
10
Oct
10
10
2017
09:30 PM
9
09
30
PM
PDT
Bloodletting was never a scientific theory in the modern sense. It stemmed from what amounted to a superstition about human health depending on various "humors" being in balance. It lasted as long as it did basically because people couldn't think of anything better and it was relatively simple to perform, so simple in fact that it was carried out in barber's shops. It was nascent medical science, starting in the seventeenth century, which showed it to be largely ineffective.Seversky
October 10, 2017
October
10
Oct
10
10
2017
05:44 PM
5
05
44
PM
PDT
Sorry news, but there was no real science before 1859.Mung
October 10, 2017
October
10
Oct
10
10
2017
11:50 AM
11
11
50
AM
PDT

Leave a Reply