Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

Ouch! Scott Turner on “settled science”


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.


Ignorance and cronyism are the only settled sciences

...so we have better standards of evidence.
Still waiting for the evolutionists to catch up. Mung
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
Humorism was ancient science. Aeneas Pietas
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
Sorry news, but there was no real science before 1859. Mung

Leave a Reply