"History of Medical Delusions"

[Orphia Nay]

"Quackwatch has posted a digital copy of Lessons from the History of Medical Delusions, by Worthington Hooker, M.D. The book was published in 1850, when scientific medicine was in its infancy, but Hooker correctly identified what he called "the principal elements or cases of medical delusions" as dispositions toward

(a) considering whatever follows a cause as being the result of that cause,
(b) basing one's beliefs on a single theory,
(c) espousing the opposite of what is generally believed,
(d) theorizing instead making strict observations,
(e) fashion in diseases and in their remedies,
(f) undue fondness toward new things, and
(g) putting a low value upon the medical profession."

http://www.quackwatch.org/13Hx/hooker_delusions.pdf

A great summary of causes, still highly relevant today! I haven't read the book yet, but I thought I'd share the link.

 

[Dinwar]

(d) theorizing instead making strict observations,

Not sure about this one. I mean, on the one hand yeah, when theory replaces observation you're doing it wrong. However, if you never theorize, if you ONLY observe, you're also not doing science. Science requires the integration of observations into theoretical frameworks. It's the foundation of the process (a prediction is NOT an observation, nor can a prediction arise from observations alone--there is always some theoretical underpinning).

 

[Orphia Nay]

(d) theorizing instead making strict observations,

Not sure about this one. I mean, on the one hand yeah, when theory replaces observation you're doing it wrong. However, if you never theorize, if you ONLY observe, you're also not doing science. Science requires the integration of observations into theoretical frameworks. It's the foundation of the process (a prediction is NOT an observation, nor can a prediction arise from observations alone--there is always some theoretical underpinning).

Well said, but he's saying "theorising instead of making strict observations". I don't think he's saying you should not have a theory at all, but rather you should not have just a theory without testing it and learning from the results.

 

[Brown]

One other factor, arguably implied by the others, is a belief that one's own views are more intelligent or enlightened or altruistic, while the views of others (even though they may be in the majority) are the result of stupidity, intellectual dishonesty, bias or greed.

 

[I Ratant]

One other factor, arguably implied by the others, is a belief that one's own views are more intelligent or enlightened or altruistic, while the views of others (even though they may be in the majority) are the result of stupidity, intellectual dishonesty, bias or greed.

.
Reading yesterday in "Best Science Writing in 2005", Semmelweis's idea of washing hands between attending childbirths by doctors wasn't popular with the majority of doctors at the time due to his acerbic and confrontational nature.
He was right, but a failure at changing the practice.

 

[JSFolk]

I downloaded "Hooker_delusions.pdf" and it is not at all what I was expecting.

 

[dropzone]

I downloaded "Hooker_delusions.pdf" and it is not at all what I was expecting.

What is nice is that, though it wasn't what I was expecting hoping for, at least I didn't get laughed at.

 

[DevilsAdvocate]

"Quackwatch has posted a digital copy of Lessons from the History of Medical Delusions, by Worthington Hooker, M.D. The book was published in 1850, when scientific medicine was in its infancy, but Hooker correctly identified what he called "the principal elements or cases of medical delusions" as dispositions toward

(a) considering whatever follows a cause as being the result of that cause,
(b) basing one's beliefs on a single theory,
(c) espousing the opposite of what is generally believed,
(d) theorizing instead making strict observations,
(e) fashion in diseases and in their remedies,
(f) undue fondness toward new things, and
(g) putting a low value upon the medical profession."

http://www.quackwatch.org/13Hx/hooker_delusions.pdf

A great summary of causes, still highly relevant today! I haven't read the book yet, but I thought I'd share the link.

Very interesting. That seems like a very good test of general skepticism in any area. There are, of course, exceptions that would violate some of those elements. Galileo, Newton, and Einstein would have violated several, but not all of them. Many other less ground breaking ideas may violate one or two of the elements.

I can’t think of any scientific theory that is generally accepted that violates most of those elements (except perhaps the most ground breaking, depending on how far you stretch things). Yet I can think of many woo-woo ideas that violate all or most of those elements.

 

[ria_rokz]

Sounds like a diagnosis for many proponents of CCSVI in multiple sclerosis.