为什么塞梅尔魏斯的理论被拒绝:来自弗里德里希·维格(Friedrich Wieger)首次发表的他的结果的证据,以及对结果的评论。

IF 0.7 1区 哲学 Q2 HISTORY & PHILOSOPHY OF SCIENCE British Journal for the History of Science Pub Date : 2020-09-01 Epub Date: 2020-07-03 DOI:10.1017/S0007087420000229
Nicholas Kadar, Russell D Croft
{"title":"为什么塞梅尔魏斯的理论被拒绝:来自弗里德里希·维格(Friedrich Wieger)首次发表的他的结果的证据,以及对结果的评论。","authors":"Nicholas Kadar,&nbsp;Russell D Croft","doi":"10.1017/S0007087420000229","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>We present English translations of two French documents to show that the main reason for the rejection of Semmelweis's theory of the cause of childbed (puerperal) fever was because his proof relied on the post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy, and not because Joseph Skoda referred only to cadaveric particles as the cause in his lecture to the Academy of Science on Semmelweis's discovery. Friedrich Wieger (1821-1890), an obstetrician from Strasbourg, published an accurate account of Semmelweis's theory six months before Skoda's lecture, and reported a case in which the causative agent originated from a source other than cadavers. Wieger also presented data showing that chlorine hand disinfection reduced the annual maternal mortality rate from childbed fever (MMR) from more than 7 per cent for the years 1840-1846 to 1.27 per cent in 1848, the first full year in which chlorine hand disinfection was practised. But an editorial in the Gazette médicale de Paris rejected the data as proof of the effectiveness of chlorine hand disinfection, stating that the fact that the MMR fell after chlorine hand disinfection was implemented did not mean that this innovation had caused the MMR to fall. This previously unrecognized objection to Semmelweis's proof was also the reason why Semmelweis's chief rejected Semmelweis's evidence.</p>","PeriodicalId":46655,"journal":{"name":"British Journal for the History of Science","volume":"53 3","pages":"389-395"},"PeriodicalIF":0.7000,"publicationDate":"2020-09-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1017/S0007087420000229","citationCount":"4","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Why Semmelweis's doctrine was rejected: evidence from the first publication of his results by Friedrich Wieger, and an editorial commenting on the results.\",\"authors\":\"Nicholas Kadar,&nbsp;Russell D Croft\",\"doi\":\"10.1017/S0007087420000229\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>We present English translations of two French documents to show that the main reason for the rejection of Semmelweis's theory of the cause of childbed (puerperal) fever was because his proof relied on the post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy, and not because Joseph Skoda referred only to cadaveric particles as the cause in his lecture to the Academy of Science on Semmelweis's discovery. Friedrich Wieger (1821-1890), an obstetrician from Strasbourg, published an accurate account of Semmelweis's theory six months before Skoda's lecture, and reported a case in which the causative agent originated from a source other than cadavers. Wieger also presented data showing that chlorine hand disinfection reduced the annual maternal mortality rate from childbed fever (MMR) from more than 7 per cent for the years 1840-1846 to 1.27 per cent in 1848, the first full year in which chlorine hand disinfection was practised. But an editorial in the Gazette médicale de Paris rejected the data as proof of the effectiveness of chlorine hand disinfection, stating that the fact that the MMR fell after chlorine hand disinfection was implemented did not mean that this innovation had caused the MMR to fall. This previously unrecognized objection to Semmelweis's proof was also the reason why Semmelweis's chief rejected Semmelweis's evidence.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":46655,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"British Journal for the History of Science\",\"volume\":\"53 3\",\"pages\":\"389-395\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.7000,\"publicationDate\":\"2020-09-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1017/S0007087420000229\",\"citationCount\":\"4\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"British Journal for the History of Science\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"98\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1017/S0007087420000229\",\"RegionNum\":1,\"RegionCategory\":\"哲学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2020/7/3 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"Epub\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"HISTORY & PHILOSOPHY OF SCIENCE\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"British Journal for the History of Science","FirstCategoryId":"98","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1017/S0007087420000229","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2020/7/3 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"HISTORY & PHILOSOPHY OF SCIENCE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 4

摘要

我们提供了两份法语文件的英文翻译,以表明拒绝塞梅尔威斯的产褥热病因理论的主要原因是他的证明依赖于事后因由谬误,而不是因为约瑟夫·斯科达在科学院关于塞梅尔威斯的发现的演讲中只提到尸体颗粒作为病因。斯特拉斯堡的产科医生弗里德里希·维格(Friedrich Wieger, 1821-1890)在斯柯达演讲的六个月前发表了一篇关于塞梅尔韦斯理论的准确描述,并报告了一个病例,其中病原体来自尸体以外的来源。Wieger还介绍了数据,表明氯手消毒将产热(MMR)的年孕产妇死亡率从1840-1846年的7%以上降低到1848年的1.27%,1848年是实施氯手消毒的第一个全年。但是《巴黎公报》的一篇社论拒绝将这些数据作为氯手消毒有效性的证据,指出在氯手消毒实施后,MMR下降的事实并不意味着这种创新导致了MMR下降。这一先前未被承认的对Semmelweis证据的异议,也是Semmelweis的首席法官拒绝Semmelweis证据的原因。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Why Semmelweis's doctrine was rejected: evidence from the first publication of his results by Friedrich Wieger, and an editorial commenting on the results.

We present English translations of two French documents to show that the main reason for the rejection of Semmelweis's theory of the cause of childbed (puerperal) fever was because his proof relied on the post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy, and not because Joseph Skoda referred only to cadaveric particles as the cause in his lecture to the Academy of Science on Semmelweis's discovery. Friedrich Wieger (1821-1890), an obstetrician from Strasbourg, published an accurate account of Semmelweis's theory six months before Skoda's lecture, and reported a case in which the causative agent originated from a source other than cadavers. Wieger also presented data showing that chlorine hand disinfection reduced the annual maternal mortality rate from childbed fever (MMR) from more than 7 per cent for the years 1840-1846 to 1.27 per cent in 1848, the first full year in which chlorine hand disinfection was practised. But an editorial in the Gazette médicale de Paris rejected the data as proof of the effectiveness of chlorine hand disinfection, stating that the fact that the MMR fell after chlorine hand disinfection was implemented did not mean that this innovation had caused the MMR to fall. This previously unrecognized objection to Semmelweis's proof was also the reason why Semmelweis's chief rejected Semmelweis's evidence.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
0.80
自引率
12.50%
发文量
59
期刊介绍: This leading international journal publishes scholarly papers and review articles on all aspects of the history of science. History of science is interpreted widely to include medicine, technology and social studies of science. BJHS papers make important and lively contributions to scholarship and the journal has been an essential library resource for more than thirty years. It is also used extensively by historians and scholars in related fields. A substantial book review section is a central feature. There are four issues a year, comprising an annual volume of over 600 pages. Published for the British Society for the History of Science
期刊最新文献
How the Glaishers pictured snowflakes. Essay review: technopolitics, development and the residues of the South African state. Proxies and partial connections in an anthropologist's archive. Charting the hybrid architectural style of quantum theory. The politics of medical expertise and substance control: WHO consultants for addiction rehabilitation and pharmacy education in Thailand and India during the Cold War.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1