The fucked up part is that barely a decade after his death - thanks to the efforts of Louis Pasteur - Semmelweis’s work went from so controversial they condemned him to his death, to becoming the basis for the field of aseptics
Never suggest common sense to people who are raised in ignorance. Too much of a new idea will always be a huge threat to them, though nobody knows why.
But ignorance is only really appreciated in retrospect.
When the ignoramus is contemporary, he knows he’s right. He’s thinking what all the smart modern people are thinking. Of course he’s right.
And any idea that contradicts him (and contradict the modern, right-thinking majority) is clearly foolishness.
So maybe it’s the modern right-thinkers that we need to be wary of.
IT’s the Dunning-Kruger effect - people with limited knowledge or competence in a given intellectual or social domain greatly overestimate their own knowledge or competence in that domain relative to objective criteria. And they tend to only value the criteria that validate their own points of view. What we really lack is the eagerness to know all sides of an issue and take them into account.
What I’m wondering is why the midwives for some reason had cleaner hands hand the male doctors?
The doctors at the hospital where this happened were also doing autopsies and would often go directly from an autopsie to the delivery ward without washing their hands.
The midwives did not perform autopsies.
It was not that the midwives’ hands were especially clean, it was that the Dr’s hands were very contaminated.
Are you really wondering?
State your case and move on. You are probably filled with foolish ideas too. We all are. All you can do is grow.
I have no idea what you are on about, but yes I am genuinely wondering
Did you not research the phenomenon a bit? Google it?
One hypothesis is that they didn’t touch the stuff that the doctors touched.
I mean I’m getting that your question is rhetorical. Which is to say it doesn’t get to the point quickly. And I think you’d be better off getting to the point quickly. So you can move on to more meaningful investigations.
You’re an ass, go away
Gee, sorry.
There was nothing rhetorical about the question. He asked a question. Rhetorical doesn’t mean anything about getting to the point quickly. It means a question that doesn’t need an answer.
A rhetorical question avoids getting to the point because getting to the point is not the point of rhetoric. The point of rhetoric is emotional effect. Therefore when swift and easy arrival at the point is eschewed (a moment’s google), and an emotional effect is clearly evident, then rhetoric is clearly the point.
Tangentially, consider the phenomenon of “smugnorance”.
And his question wasn’t beating around the bush. He literally just asked a question. It wasn’t rhetorical. Just because you say it’s rhetorical doesn’t make it rhetorical. Rhetorical.
And repeating your thesis sways me not at all.
Have you tried whacking yourself in the head with a rock?
What the actual fuck is your problem? Completely insufferable.
I can’t wait to see what future generations will remark “I can’t believe they lived in a world without that knowledge” about our time.
Plastic
Is this real and accurate?
And to think he could have been saved if those guards had washed their hands before beating him.
Like Nietschze; I mean the official theory ist that he contracted syfilis as a young man and therefore later in his life ended up in an insane asylum; which of course was fathomable and apparently happend a lot in the end of the 19th century. I for myself kinda choose to stick to the theory that he just couldn’t take the world view he created for himself anymore and the ignorance of the vast majority, so that he also had something like a ‘nervous breakdown’ that landed him in such a place. But well, I guess that’s just trivia or the ramblings of another mad man… 😜cheers
All modern smart people know what the truth is. Always have. Always will.
I can’t believe that you take dreams seriously. Everybody knows they’re just hallucinations.
Afterlife? Reincarnation? It’s just fantasies.
A creator of the universe? Crazy.
Little people. Spirits. Sure people reported seeing them for thousands of years. But now we know better.
Don’t be crazy.
I know I’m beating this point into the dirt. But seriously.
Semmelweis’s hypothesis is testable. None of what you mentioned is.
Have you tried conducting the relevant experiments? That’s how we test such things.
Give us your experimental designs to verify or falsify all the things you listed:
Afterlife
Reincarnation
A creator of the universe
Little people
Spirits
I personally believe none of it but show me how it can be proven using the scientific method.
Ok.
Environments suggesting an afterlife may be encountered via certain meditation techniques.
Interviews with children who recall past lives suggests reincarnation.
Something fitting description of a “creator of the universe” may be encountered via certain meditation techniques.
Little people. Hmm. You got me there. But the literature is filled with reports. I hear that frequent fasting is good.
Spirits. I’d advise hallucinogens.
And of course, these methods unavoidably esoteric and depthy.
Environments suggesting an afterlife may be encountered via certain meditation techniques.
What is your control group for this?
Does people not experiencing this while mediating prove it does not exist. (I have been meditation for 20 years and have no indication of this)
Interviews with children who recall past lives suggests reincarnation.
Do interviews with children who do not recall pass lives invalidate this?
Something fitting description of a “creator of the universe” may be encountered via certain meditation techniques.
What is your control group for this?
Does people not experiencing this while mediating prove it does not exist. (I have been meditation for 20 years and have no indication of this)
Little people. Hmm. You got me there. But the literature is filled with reports.
Literature is filled with shit people made up, it proves nothing scientifically.
And of course, these methods unavoidably esoteric and depthy.
Exactly, none of what you wrote is based on the scientific method.
The scientific method consists of observation and talking about what you observed. The rest is accounting.
And tho I appreciate balanced books as much as anybody, let’s not let that distract us from our first step in any scientific investigation : Observation.
Which leads us to these methods that I roughed out for you there.
But if these methods are not your cup of tea then you can only blame yourself.
And if you prefer to ignore those who have gone where you have not, then, again, you can only blame yourself.
Observation is not looking at something and drawing a conclusion. It is noticing something, looking into that something, and then designing a controlled environment to test your observations to see whether you observed correctly.
I can’t look at an apple for the first time and tell you whether or not it is ripe. I would first need to know what an apple should look like when it’s ripe based on what I find, and then make sure that an apple is ripe when it is in a certain condition.
So many of us think of ourselves as smart and sensible while actually being as locked into the paradigm of the hour as a 13th century religious zealot. Same insanity, different century.
