Advertisement

From Zymes to Germs: Discarding the Realist/Anti-Realist Framework

  • Dana TulodzieckiEmail author
Chapter
Part of the Boston Studies in the Philosophy and History of Science book series (BSPS, volume 319)

Abstract

I argue that neither realist nor anti-realist accounts of theory-change can account for the transition from zymotic views of disease to germ views. The trouble with realism is its focus on stable and continuous elements that get retained in the transition from one theory to the next; the trouble with anti-realism is its focus on the radical discontinuity between theories and their successors. I show that neither of these approaches works for the transition from zymes to germs: there is neither continuity nor discontinuity, but, instead, a gradual evolution from zyme to germ views, during which germ elements are slowly incorporated into zymotic views until, eventually, none of the original zymotic constituents are left. I argue that the problem with both realism and anti-realism is that they rest on the unwarranted assumption that there are clearly delineated zymotic and germ theories as well as arguments for and against these theories, an assumption that does not hold.

Keywords

Scarlet Fever Spontaneous Generation Puerperal Fever Disease Causation Radical Discontinuity 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Notes

Acknowledgments

Many thanks to Mike Jacovides for a number of helpful conversations and remarks, and, especially, to David McCarty for his careful comments on a previous draft. For helpful discussions, I thank Hildegard Tulodziecki.

References

  1. Ackerknecht, E.H. 2009. Anticontagionism between 1821 and 1867. The Fielding H. Garrison Lecture. International Journal of Epidemiology 38(1): 7–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Arabatzis, T., and D. Howard. 2015. Introduction: Integrated history and philosophy of science in practice. Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part A 50: 1–3.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Arabatzis, T., and J. Schickore. 2012. Ways of integrating history and philosophy of science. Perspectives on Science 20(4): 395–408.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bashford, A., and C. Hooker (eds.). 2001. Contagion: Historical and cultural studies, vol 15. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  5. Brock, W.H. 2002. Justus von Liebig: The chemical gatekeeper. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  6. Bulloch, W. [1938], 1960. The history of bacteriology. Reprint: Heath Clark lectures. University of London. London: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  7. Chakravartty, A. 1998. Semirealism. Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part A 29(3): 391–408.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Chakravartty, A. 2007. A metaphysics for scientific realism. Knowing the unobservable. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  9. Chang, H. 1999. History and philosophy of science as a continuation of science by other means. Science & Education 8(4): 413–425.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Douglas, H., and P. Magnus. 2013. State of the field: Why novel prediction matters. Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part A 44(4): 580–589.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Eyler, J. 1971. William Farr (1807–1883): An intellectual biography of a social pathologist. Doctoral Dissertation, University of Wisconsin-Madison.Google Scholar
  12. Eyler, J. 1979. Victorian social medicine: The ideas and methods of William Farr. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.Google Scholar
  13. Farr, W. 1842. Fourth annual report to the registrar general. London: W. Clowes.Google Scholar
  14. Farr, W. 1852a. Influence of elevation on the fatality of cholera. Journal of the Statistical Society of London 15: 155–183.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Farr, W. 1852b. Report on the mortality of cholera in England, 1848–49. London: W. Clowes.Google Scholar
  16. Farr, W. 1868. Report on the cholera epidemic of 1866 in England: Supplement to the twenty-ninth annual report of the registrar-general. London: H.M.S.O.Google Scholar
  17. Feest, U., and F. Steinle (eds.). 2012. Scientific concepts and investigative practice. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.Google Scholar
  18. Feest, U., and T. Sturm. 2011. What (good) is historical epistemology? Erkenntnis 75: 285–302.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Gay, J. 1870. Reports of societies, Medical Society of London, Monday, October 31st, 1870. The British Medical Journal 2(516): 566.Google Scholar
  20. Gillies, D. 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 Scholar
  21. Gradmann, C. 2009. Laboratory disease: Robert Koch’s medical bacteriology. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.Google Scholar
  22. Hamlin, C. 1982. What becomes of pollution? Adversary science and the controversy on the self-purification of rivers in Britain, 1850–1900. Doctoral Dissertation, University of Wisconsin-Madison.Google Scholar
  23. Hamlin, C. 1985. Providence and putrefaction: Victorian sanitarians and the natural theology of health and disease. Victorian Studies 28: 381–411.Google Scholar
  24. Hamlin, C. 2009. Cholera: The biography. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  25. Hardy, A. 1993. Cholera, quarantine and the English preventive system, 1850–1895. Medical History 37(3): 250–269.Google Scholar
  26. Howard, D. 2011. Philosophy of science and the history of science. In The Continuum companion to the philosophy of science, ed. S. French, and J. Saatsi, 55–71. London: Continuum.Google Scholar
  27. Kitcher, P. 1993. The advancement of science. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  28. Kuhn, T.S. 1996. The structure of scientific revolutions, 3rd ed. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  29. Laudan, L. 1981. A confutation of convergent realism. Philosophy of Science 48(1): 19–49.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Laudan, L. 1984. Science and values. Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar
  31. Liebig, J. 1842. Chemistry in its applications to agriculture and physiology. London: Taylor and Walton (Edited from the manuscript of the author by Lyon Playfair).Google Scholar
  32. Liebig, J. 1852. Animal chemistry: or, chemistry in its applications to physiology and pathology. New York: Wiley (Edited from the author’s manuscript by William Gregory. From the third London edition, revised and greatly enlarged).Google Scholar
  33. Mauskopf, S., and T. Schmaltz (eds.). 2012. Integrating history and philosophy of science: Problems and prospects. Dordrecht: Springer.Google Scholar
  34. Pelling, M. 1978. Cholera, fever and English medicine, 1825–1865. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  35. Pelling, M. 1993. Contagion/germ theory/specificity. In Companion encyclopedia of the history of medicine, ed. W.F. Bynum, and R. Porter, 309–334. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  36. Pelling, M. 2001. The Meaning of Contagion: reproduction, medicine and metaphor. In Contagion: Historical and cultural studies, eds. A. Bashford, and C. Hooker. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  37. Peters, D. 2012. How to be a scientific realist (if at all): a study of partial realism. Ph.D. thesis, The London School of Economics and Political Science (LSE).Google Scholar
  38. Psillos, S. 1996. Scientific realism and the ‘pessimistic induction’. Philosophy of Science 63: S306–S314.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Psillos, S. 1999. Scientific realism: How science tracks truth. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  40. Richardson, B. 1877. The glandular origin of contagious diseases. Medical Times and Gazette ii:235–236.Google Scholar
  41. Schickore, J. 2011. More thoughts on HPS: Another 20 years later. Perspectives on Science 19(4): 453–481.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Tulodziecki, D. forthcoming. Structural realism beyond physics. Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part A.Google Scholar
  43. Tulodziecki, D. unpublished manuscript. Continuity, truth, and pessimism.Google Scholar
  44. Vickers, P. 2013. Understanding inconsistent science. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Votsis, I., L. Fahrbach, and G. Schurz. 2014. Special section on novel predictions. Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part A 45: 43–45.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Winslow, C.E.A. 1980. The conquest of epidemic disease: A chapter in the history of ideas. Madison: University of Wisconsin Press.Google Scholar
  47. Worboys, M. 2000. Spreading germs: Diseases, theories, and medical practice in Britain, 1865–1900. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  48. Worrall, J. 1989. Structural realism: The best of both worlds? Dialectica 43(1/2): 99–124.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Worrall, J. 1994. How to remain (reasonably) optimistic: Scientific realism and the “luminiferous ether” In PSA: Proceedings of the Biennial Meeting of the Philosophy of Science Association, 334–342.Google Scholar
  50. Wylie, A. 1994. Discourse, practice, context: From hps to interdisciplinary science studies. In PSA: Proceedings of the Biennial Meeting of the Philosophy of Science Association, 393–395.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of PhilosophyPurdue UniversityWest LafayetteUSA

Personalised recommendations