How scientists explain disease

By C. Lawrence. 2001

In spite of its beguiling title and glowing blurb on the dust jacket, medical historians are likely to find this work remorselessly presentist, historically inaccurate and very hard going. It is the sort of book that gives philosophy of science something worse than a bad name. Besides the roller-coaster ride between technical philosophy and banal simplifications there is an unreconstructed realism here that will not appeal to modern historical sensibilities. Although lots of examples of the search for the causes of disease are given, the focus of the book is a supposed switch from humoralism to germ theory in the nineteenth century and the eventual explanation of peptic ulcer as caused by Heliobacter pylori. Thagard's endeavour is to generate a new, fairly eclectic account of how etiological ideas are produced by welding together writings from authors in the philosophy and sociology of science who would not, intellectually speaking, be seen within a million miles of each other. Beneath the surface of the approach, however, are a number of familiar assumptions. There are, we are told, at least three possible reasons why it is difficult to identify the causes of disease. First "there can be too many possible causes to sort out", as the history of scurvy at sea illustrates. Second is "background causal beliefs". For example "the recognition that beriberi is a nutritional disease was impeded by attempts to find a microbial cause". The third difficulty in identifying the causes of disease "is that many are not directly observable". So bacteria "became observable with the invention of the optical microscope" (p. 130). Even those who wish to write their history on these premises will find this book hard going.

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

Citations in the corpus

On the Usefulness of “Value” in the Definition of Creativity (2015, background): “A similar process of initial rejection followed by slow long-term acceptance was seen in the history of the idea that the main cause of stomach ulcers was the bacterium H-pylori (Thagard, 1999).”
Interpreting Scientific and Engineering Practices: Integrating the cognitive, social, and cultural dimensions (2003, background): “(Dunbar 1995; Giere 1988, 2002; Gooding 1990; Gorman and Carlson 1990; Gorman 1997; Kurz and Tweney 1998; Nersessian 1984; Nersessian 1995; Nersessian 2002; Thagard 2000; Tweney 1985, 2002) Accommodating these insights requires inserting a third approach to interpreting science and engineering pract”
The Oxford handbook of thinking and reasoning (2012, background): “One example is the discovery using inductive reasoning that a certain type of bacterium is a cause of many ulcers (Thagard, 1999).”
Scientific Thinking and Reasoning (2012, background): “Beginning with the work of Wason (1968) and as discussed previously, researchers have repeatedly shown that when participants are asked to design an experiment to test a hypothesis, they predominantly design experiments they think will yield results consistent with the hypothesis.”