Misdirected efforts in New Zealand to honor Indigenous culture by infusing myth into science classes are harming the teaching of science there, just as they are elsewhere.
Most MD's, even today, don't conduct any research. Medical doctors are to science as mechanics are to engineering, they just apply knowledge and experience to fix/heal things.
Midwives accumulated and passed on a lot of real knowledge and were probably involved in treating children from the many diseases that we didn't understand at the time. It really wasn't until the late 19th century that proof of the microbiological world became dominant in disease and Koch's postulates became widely known. It then took a few generations to make that reality and have alternative hypothesis from witchcraft and black magic to "bad air" fade into history.
Medicine didn't become scientific until modern times.
I agree but I cannot help but smile when you say: "Science is universal. It is not ‘male’, nor ‘white’, or ‘western’."
May be, but scientists are not (were not) "universal". Until recently, medicine (if you consider it a science) was "male". Females (female rats actually) were considered too complicated to run experiments for them. Many diseases affecting primary females or having different symptoms in females were unknown, ignored or misunderstood. Women had to march to protest lack of research/funding for breast cancer.
Soon (already) women in the US will not be able to rely on medical science for abortion even for health reasons. They now seeking "alternative methods" relying on herbs and other concoctions. Unfortunately, the universality of science is entangled with its societal context.
While certain scientists may have had biases, science is not merely a collection of facts or body of knowledge garnered through studies. As per your point on sex differences in medicine, there may always, of course, be more or less universality to certain findings in this body of knowledge depending on what the findings relate to.
However, the true universality of science lies first and foremost in its core methodological framework. This method is a social technology that ruthlessly interogates all claims to propositional knowledge through a balance of wonder and scepticism. Identity characteristics are irrelevant here.
May be you misunderstood me. I was just complaining about the 'lack" of findings about conditions in which biological identity matters. E.g., the lack of applying the "scientific method" in such cases!
A good story that may not be true. I just heard a history of medical doctors that indicated that most doctors were women before the AMA gained control over the accreditation of medical schools and the licensing of doctors. This new monopoly ran up the cost of obtaining a medical license and excluded women and minorities.
The Empire of the Scalpel, Ira Rutkow "An additional admonition concerns the fact that the history of surgery has been largely dominated by white men. There is no disputing that, as far back as the Middle Ages, there were women who had a role in providing surgical services for their households or the poor. However, with the growth of the male-dominated Catholic Church in the sixteenth century and their care of the sick, females were forced aside and discouraged from performing any form of surgical therapy. Even with the beginnings of modern surgical training at the start of the twentieth century, the road for female surgeons remained difficult. Nevertheless, the opening of the Woman’s Medical College of Pennsylvania and the London School of Medicine for Women provided fresh opportunities in surgery. Yet, despite the increasing presence of female surgeons, few held positions of authority or leadership or exerted any semblance of control over the governance of surgery until the mid-1970s."
I read two med history books on the subject, but my memory fails me! What I remember, though, is that medicine was not based on scientific principles until very late. Before surgeons were butchers or barbers and midwives did not conduct research on diseases of any kind!
It's funny, without science they would be living their stone-age beliefs. Still dying from the water, splinters, cut fingers and dieses the horrible vaccines prevent. I'm sick of the fact that we pay attention to the whining minority.
Perhaps the social sciences and humanities are correct: "it is all about power". In this case the power to veto reality when you believe it some other story and can force that belief on others.
Too bad nature and reality doesn't give a damn about humanity and we are totally dependent for survival on that reality.
I just reread Orwell's "1984" and it seems even more valid today in our "woke" culture as the new-speak grows and real history and science goes down the memory hole.
I never even considered the possibility of the crazy post-modern belief over in the social sciences and humanities being able to power to suppress the enlightenment and the sciences much like the religions did in the dark ages.
the earth did not exist before the light.. among many many many many other things. took about 5 billion years for the earth to form after the big bang.
Most MD's, even today, don't conduct any research. Medical doctors are to science as mechanics are to engineering, they just apply knowledge and experience to fix/heal things.
Midwives accumulated and passed on a lot of real knowledge and were probably involved in treating children from the many diseases that we didn't understand at the time. It really wasn't until the late 19th century that proof of the microbiological world became dominant in disease and Koch's postulates became widely known. It then took a few generations to make that reality and have alternative hypothesis from witchcraft and black magic to "bad air" fade into history.
Medicine didn't become scientific until modern times.
I agree but I cannot help but smile when you say: "Science is universal. It is not ‘male’, nor ‘white’, or ‘western’."
May be, but scientists are not (were not) "universal". Until recently, medicine (if you consider it a science) was "male". Females (female rats actually) were considered too complicated to run experiments for them. Many diseases affecting primary females or having different symptoms in females were unknown, ignored or misunderstood. Women had to march to protest lack of research/funding for breast cancer.
Soon (already) women in the US will not be able to rely on medical science for abortion even for health reasons. They now seeking "alternative methods" relying on herbs and other concoctions. Unfortunately, the universality of science is entangled with its societal context.
indeed, but I was referring to science, not scientists.. but of course your concerns, as always, are well posed.
I know, it was clear, I just could help making the comment!
While certain scientists may have had biases, science is not merely a collection of facts or body of knowledge garnered through studies. As per your point on sex differences in medicine, there may always, of course, be more or less universality to certain findings in this body of knowledge depending on what the findings relate to.
However, the true universality of science lies first and foremost in its core methodological framework. This method is a social technology that ruthlessly interogates all claims to propositional knowledge through a balance of wonder and scepticism. Identity characteristics are irrelevant here.
May be you misunderstood me. I was just complaining about the 'lack" of findings about conditions in which biological identity matters. E.g., the lack of applying the "scientific method" in such cases!
FYI: See what came up today about mice! Posting about the long practice of excluding female mice from experiments.
https://www.nytimes.com/2023/03/07/science/female-mice-hormones.html
A good story that may not be true. I just heard a history of medical doctors that indicated that most doctors were women before the AMA gained control over the accreditation of medical schools and the licensing of doctors. This new monopoly ran up the cost of obtaining a medical license and excluded women and minorities.
The Empire of the Scalpel, Ira Rutkow "An additional admonition concerns the fact that the history of surgery has been largely dominated by white men. There is no disputing that, as far back as the Middle Ages, there were women who had a role in providing surgical services for their households or the poor. However, with the growth of the male-dominated Catholic Church in the sixteenth century and their care of the sick, females were forced aside and discouraged from performing any form of surgical therapy. Even with the beginnings of modern surgical training at the start of the twentieth century, the road for female surgeons remained difficult. Nevertheless, the opening of the Woman’s Medical College of Pennsylvania and the London School of Medicine for Women provided fresh opportunities in surgery. Yet, despite the increasing presence of female surgeons, few held positions of authority or leadership or exerted any semblance of control over the governance of surgery until the mid-1970s."
I read two med history books on the subject, but my memory fails me! What I remember, though, is that medicine was not based on scientific principles until very late. Before surgeons were butchers or barbers and midwives did not conduct research on diseases of any kind!
It's both discouraging and frightening that so much nonsense is gaining in popularity at a time when Humanity needs science more than ever.
It's funny, without science they would be living their stone-age beliefs. Still dying from the water, splinters, cut fingers and dieses the horrible vaccines prevent. I'm sick of the fact that we pay attention to the whining minority.
Perhaps the social sciences and humanities are correct: "it is all about power". In this case the power to veto reality when you believe it some other story and can force that belief on others.
Too bad nature and reality doesn't give a damn about humanity and we are totally dependent for survival on that reality.
I just reread Orwell's "1984" and it seems even more valid today in our "woke" culture as the new-speak grows and real history and science goes down the memory hole.
I never even considered the possibility of the crazy post-modern belief over in the social sciences and humanities being able to power to suppress the enlightenment and the sciences much like the religions did in the dark ages.
you must be kidding.. it bears no resemblance to the big bang at all..
the earth did not exist before the light.. among many many many many other things. took about 5 billion years for the earth to form after the big bang.