Reading for the week of 3/10: Fleck, L. (1981). Genesis and development of a scientific fact. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Fleck’s book uses the case of the scientific understanding of syphilis to illustrate the point that scientific facts are not necessarily objective but that instead, they develop over time and are influenced by society. I unfortunately missed the class discussion on this book, but I’m going to do my best to discuss one of the points that really interested me.
In the first section of the book, Fleck discusses the popular views of the definitions of syphilis before the causative agent, Spirochaeta pallida, was discovered. A popular idea was that syphilis was a “carnal scourge” created to punish people for lust, but, as Fleck observes, “this [definition] would necessarily imply the inclusion of gonorrhea, soft chancre and so on, as well as the abandonment of a therapeutic complex, and possibly of a rational method of treatment altogether” (8). Equally problematic was another popular definition, that syphilis could be defined by the efficacy of mercury to treat the disease, because although mercury and syphilis became strongly associated with one another, the use of mercury did not treat all instances and stages of syphilis. When the causative agent, Spirochaeta pallida, was discovered, these two definitions were replaced by the etiology of the disease. Elements of both of these definitions were incorporated into a modern understanding of syphilis. From the idea of the “carnal scourge,” “the connection with the sex act was translated from the mystical-ethical domain into [the] straightforward physical terms” of a venereal disease (17). Fleck also observes that “from the mercury idea a general chemotherapeutic theory arose which has contributed such wonderful remedies as Salvarsan among others” (17). Although both of these early definitions failed to fully explain syphilis, they were observations that ultimately proved useful in classifying and treating syphilis.
I thought that it was amazing that facts build upon other facts. Sometimes you need the ridiculous like carnal scourge to take you places that you wouldn’t at first consider. It was even more interesting that once people held on to ideas like carnal scourge to be facts, they weren’t quite easily able to let go. Just shows how strong the thought collective is.
Comment by Chris — March 22, 2010 @ 9:57 pm |
So, doesn’t this mean that it’s our responsibility to question the world around us? I think it does. When we were reading this, I wondered – what would happen if tomorrow, someone told me something that I had believed to be true as long as I could remember was really not true at all? How resistant would I be? Would I shrug off the new revelation because I had always believed it to be a ‘fact’? I guess it depends on what it is and who is revealing the information. I’ll probably continue to consider this.
Comment by angelaspeakman — April 1, 2010 @ 10:03 pm |