{"title":"[因果性、证据和主观性:保罗-马尔蒂尼对心身医学的方法论批判]。","authors":"Hans-Georg Hofer","doi":"10.1007/s00048-021-00316-5","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>The 1949 congress of internal medicine saw a heated and widely perceived controversy on epistemological issues of psychosomatic medicine. This article begins by outlining the place and significance of the congress in post-war history and tracing the course of the debate. The positions of the proponents of psychosomatic medicine, Viktor von Weizsäcker and Alexander Mitscherlich, are reconstructed, as well as those of the internist Paul Martini, who offered fundamental criticisms on the basis of his methodology of clinical research. In a second step, the respective different understandings of causality, evidence, and subjectivity are elaborated and contextualized. A special focus is on Martini's explicit use of these terms as well as his further research initiatives. Finally, I argue that \"1949\" can be analyzed as the culmination of an ongoing controversy about scientific evidence in clinical medicine that spanned several decades with its participants and levels of reference.</p>","PeriodicalId":43143,"journal":{"name":"NTM","volume":"29 4","pages":"387-416"},"PeriodicalIF":0.2000,"publicationDate":"2021-12-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8608761/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"[Causality, Evidence, and Subjectivity: Paul Martini's Methodological Critique of Psychosomatic Medicine].\",\"authors\":\"Hans-Georg Hofer\",\"doi\":\"10.1007/s00048-021-00316-5\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>The 1949 congress of internal medicine saw a heated and widely perceived controversy on epistemological issues of psychosomatic medicine. This article begins by outlining the place and significance of the congress in post-war history and tracing the course of the debate. The positions of the proponents of psychosomatic medicine, Viktor von Weizsäcker and Alexander Mitscherlich, are reconstructed, as well as those of the internist Paul Martini, who offered fundamental criticisms on the basis of his methodology of clinical research. In a second step, the respective different understandings of causality, evidence, and subjectivity are elaborated and contextualized. A special focus is on Martini's explicit use of these terms as well as his further research initiatives. Finally, I argue that \\\"1949\\\" can be analyzed as the culmination of an ongoing controversy about scientific evidence in clinical medicine that spanned several decades with its participants and levels of reference.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":43143,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"NTM\",\"volume\":\"29 4\",\"pages\":\"387-416\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.2000,\"publicationDate\":\"2021-12-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8608761/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"NTM\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1007/s00048-021-00316-5\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"哲学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2021/11/4 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"Epub\",\"JCR\":\"Q4\",\"JCRName\":\"HISTORY & PHILOSOPHY OF SCIENCE\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"NTM","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s00048-021-00316-5","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2021/11/4 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"HISTORY & PHILOSOPHY OF SCIENCE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
摘要
在 1949 年的内科医学大会上,人们对心身医学的认识论问题展开了激烈而广泛的争论。本文首先概述了这次大会在战后历史中的地位和意义,并追溯了争论的过程。文章重构了心身医学支持者维克多-冯-魏茨泽克(Viktor von Weizsäcker)和亚历山大-米舍利希(Alexander Mitscherlich)的立场,以及内科医生保罗-马尔蒂尼(Paul Martini)的立场,后者根据自己的临床研究方法提出了根本性的批评。第二步,阐述了各自对因果关系、证据和主观性的不同理解,并对其背景进行了分析。其中特别强调了马尔蒂尼对这些术语的明确使用以及他的进一步研究举措。最后,我认为 "1949 年 "可以被分析为一场关于临床医学中科学证据的持续争论的高潮,这场争论跨越了几十年,其参与者和参考水平也各不相同。
[Causality, Evidence, and Subjectivity: Paul Martini's Methodological Critique of Psychosomatic Medicine].
The 1949 congress of internal medicine saw a heated and widely perceived controversy on epistemological issues of psychosomatic medicine. This article begins by outlining the place and significance of the congress in post-war history and tracing the course of the debate. The positions of the proponents of psychosomatic medicine, Viktor von Weizsäcker and Alexander Mitscherlich, are reconstructed, as well as those of the internist Paul Martini, who offered fundamental criticisms on the basis of his methodology of clinical research. In a second step, the respective different understandings of causality, evidence, and subjectivity are elaborated and contextualized. A special focus is on Martini's explicit use of these terms as well as his further research initiatives. Finally, I argue that "1949" can be analyzed as the culmination of an ongoing controversy about scientific evidence in clinical medicine that spanned several decades with its participants and levels of reference.
期刊介绍:
NTM ist die größte Zeitschrift für Wissenschafts-, Technik- und Medizingeschichte im deutschen Sprachraum. Sie bietet ein internationales Forum für Forschungsbeiträge, Debatten und Rezensionen aus dem Gesamtgebiet der Wissenschafts-, Technik- und Medizingeschichte in allen Epochen und unterschiedlichen Regionen. Wir veröffentlichen innovative Beiträge, die an neuere theoretische und methodische Ansätze und Debatten anknüpfen, neues empirisches Material erschließen oder neue Forschungsfelder eröffnen. Neben der Geschichte der Naturwissenschaften, der Technik und der Medizin sind auch Beiträge zur Geschichte der Geistes-, Sozial- und Kulturwissenschaften willkommen.
NTM erscheint vierteljährlich. Neben dem klassischen, individuellen Forschungsartikel und Buchrezensionen publiziert NTM als weitere Textgattungen das „Forum“, das „Fundstück“ sowie “Essay Reviews”:
- Provokative oder auch kontroverse Beiträge stoßen im Forum Debatten und Fragen an, die unser Feld kommend prägen werden.
- Das Fundstück erschließt vergessene Objekt-, Bild- oder Schriftquellen von hoher historischer Relevanz.
- Essay Reviews bieten entlang von Literaturbesprechungen einen kritischen Überblick über ein entstehendes Forschungsfeld.
- Außerdem erscheinen Themenhefte (4-6 Artikel) sowie Special Sections (3-4 Artikel), die ein neues Forschungsfeld abstecken bzw. dessen Potential exemplarisch aufzeigen.
NTM wird seit 2018 von der Gesellschaft für die Geschichte der Wissenschaften, der Medizin, und der Technik (GWMT) herausgegeben (www.gwmt.de). Zuvor war NTM das wissenschaftliche Organ der DGGMNT (Deutsche Gesellschaft für Geschichte der Medizin, Naturwissenschaft en und Technik e. V.). Die Zeitschrift hat eine lange Tradition und wurde 1960 von Gerhard Harig und Alexander Mette in Leipzig gegründet.
• Doppelt anonymes Begutachtungsverfahren
• Mischung aus unterschiedlichen Textgattungen (Artikel, Fundstück, Forum, Essay Reviews, Rezensionen)
• Publikationssprachen: Deutsch, Englisch und Französisch
• Volltext-Zugriff fu¨r alle Institutionen des DEAL Konsortiums ab 2020. Weitere Informationen zu DEAL unter
https://www.springernature.com/gp/open-research/institutional-agreements/oaforgermany-de
NTM is the largest and most comprehensive journal for history of science, technology, and medicine in the German-speaking world. It offers an international forum for research articles, debates and reviews in the entire field of history of science, technology, and medicine in all epochs and various regions. The journal focuses on innovative theoretical and methodological approaches and discussions which make new empirical material or areas of research accessible. Contributions to the history of science, technology, and medicine, but also to the history of the social sciences and the humanities are welcome.
NTM appears four times a year. Aside from classic individual research articles and book reviews, NTM publishes as additional text genres the “Forum”, the “Lost & Found”, and also “Essay Reviews”:
- In the Forum, provocative or controversial contributions encourage debates and questions, that are set to shape the future of our field.
- Lost & Found aims at exploring forgotten objects and other sources of great historical relevance.
- Essay Reviews provide a critical overview of emerging research fields along literature reviews.
- Moreover, NTM publishes Special Issues (4 – 6 articles) as well as Special Sections (3-4 articles), are aiming at defining new research fields or demonstrating their potential.
NTM has been published under the auspices of the „Gesellschaft für die Geschichte der Wissenschaften, der Medizin, und der Technik (GWMT)”, (www.gwmt.de) since 2008. Before, NTM used to be the scientific body of the DGGMNT (Deutsche Gesellschaft für Geschichte der Medizin, Naturwissenschaft en und Technik e. V.). The journal has a long tradition and was founded in 1960 by Gerhard Harig and Alexander Mette in Leipzig.
• Double-blind peer review process
• Mixture of different text genres (articles, lost & found, forum, essay reviews, reviews)
• Papers are accepted for publication in German, English, and French
• Open access to the full-text version under country-specific conditions
Bibliographie
N.T.M.
Zuerst erschienen 1960 / first published in 1960
Namensänderung ab 1.1.2008 / renamed in 2008
1 Volumen pro Jahr, 4 Hefte pro Volumen / 1 vol. per year, 4 issues per volume
ca. 500 Seiten pro Volumen / 500 pages per volume
Format: 15.5 x 23.5 cm
ISSN 0036-6978 (print)
ISSN 1420-9144 (electronic)