Quick ... what does THIS remind you of?

According to Ron Baker's review on AccountingWeb, in Bad Medicine: Doctors Doing Harm Since Hippocrates, University of York prof David Wootten recounts,

The history of medicine begins with Hippocrates in the fifth century BC. Yet until the invention of antibiotics in the 1940s doctors, in general, did their patients more harm than good.

In other words, for 2400 years patients believed doctors were doing good; for 2300 years they were wrong.

That fact is, of course well known, but here is the interesting part:

We all assume that good ideas and theories will drive out bad ones, but that is not necessarily true, especially in medicine. Historically, bad medicine drove out good medicine.

As Wootton explains:

We know how to write histories of discovery and progress, but not how to write histories of stasis, of delay, of digression. We know how to write about the delight of discovery, but not about attachment to the old and resistance to the new.

[ ... ]

The discovery of the circulation of the blood (1628), of oxygen (1775), of the role of haemoglobin (1862) made no difference; the discoveries were adapted to the therapy [bloodletting] rather than vice versa.

...if you look at therapy, not theory, then ancient medicine survive more or less intact into the middle of the nineteenth century and beyond.

Strangely, traditional medical practices — bloodletting, purging, inducing vomiting — had continued even while people's understanding of how the body worked underwent radical alteration. The new theories were set to work to justify old practices.

The resemblance of this to much current evolution theory is uncanny. New discoveries are adapted to old claims; the claims are not reevaluated.

Hat tip: Stephanie West Allen at Brains on Purpose.

Science stalled because oldsters try to prevent young upstarts from coming forward?

"You've got far more scientists than ever before but the pace of discovery has not increased," notes British science journalist Nigel Calder, a former editor for New Scientist. Interesting ideas. He goes after Richard Dawkins, arguing that his account of evolution is "hopelessly out of date."

History of science and popular culture: Isaac Newton and the end of the world

An exhibition at Jerusalem's Hebrew University of a 1704 letter written by Isaac Newton shows that he believed, based on his reading of the Book of Daniel in the Bible, that the world would end in 2060.

His famously analytical mind worked out the laws of gravity and unravelled the motion of the planets. And when it came to predicting the end of the world, Sir Isaac Newton was just as precise.

He believed the Apocalypse would come in 2060 – exactly 1,260 years after the foundation of the Holy Roman Empire, according to a recently published letter.

Thus, Newton, long regarded as an icon of materialist science, would be right at home with today's fundamentalists, who pushed the Left Behind series into bestseller status.

Except for one thing: Newton apparently didn't feel the need to heed Jesus' warning , following his own apocalyptic predictions,

"No one knows about that day or hour, not even the angels in heaven, nor the Son, but only the Father. NIV

Newton writes as though he thinks that such strictures apply mainly to others:

"This I mention not to assert when the time of the end shall be, but to put a stop to the rash conjectures of fanciful men who are frequently predicting the time of the end, and by doing so bring the sacred prophesies into discredit as often as their predictions fail."

Curator Yemima Ben-Menahem, comments diplomatically, "These documents show a scientist guided by religious fervour, by a desire to see God's actions in the world."

Here are some thoughtful reflections on Newton's actual views vs. his public persona by Stephen D. Snobelan:

Why did Newton's prediction for 2060 become such a big news story?

One reason why Newton's heresy, apocalyptic thought and prediction about the 2060 date became news in February 2003 is because most members of the media and the public had no idea that Newton was anything other than a "scientist". For many, the revelation that Newton was a passionate believer who took biblical prophecy seriously came as something of a shock. It seems that both the media and the general public have a notion of Newton as a "rational" scientist that makes it difficult to absorb the knowledge that Newton was practising both alchemy and prophetic exegesis—studies many see as antithetical to the enterprise of science. The media has perpetuated a myth that science and religion are inherently in conflict (the fact is, sometimes they are; but religion has also often stimulated the development of science). The story about Newton predicting the Apocalypse in 2060 is the sort of thing that one would expect to see on the covers of the tabloids. In this case, however, the story is true. Ironically, the tabloids did not cover the story (perhaps because this story, although counter-intuitive to many people, is authentic).

In other words, the public perceptions are based on scientism, not reality.

Intellectual freedom: Science historian weighs in on Gonzalez tenure denial

Ted Davis, a Messiah U science historian who has often attacked ID and the ID guys in general, had this to say, among other thngs, about the denial of tenure to Guillermo Gonzalez, in a letter to Iowa State University's president:

From where I sit, the impact of Dr. Avalos’[*] deeds is not hard to see: he poisoned the environment for Dr. Gonzalez, by undermining his academic reputation and isolating him at Iowa State*and all based on a book that is actually one of the best popular books about science in recent years. I am an expert on the history of religion and science in the United States (my current project on modern America has received significant support from the National Science Foundation), and in my opinion Dr. Gonzalez’ treatment of historical topics in The Privileged Planet is far superior to the treatment of comparable topics in Sagan’s famous series. His debunking of the so-called “Copernican principle,” associated with the late Harvard astronomer Harlow Shapley, is an excellent corrective to the false view of Shapley, Sagan, and many other scientists that Copernicus somehow “demoted” humanity by moving us out of the center of the universe. As Dennis Danielson has shown decisively (in an ! article in American Journal of Physics and in The Book of the Cosmos), Copernicus and his followers believed no such thing, and Gonzalez’ clear explanation of the details helps the record straight for many in the general public. A leading historian of astronomy, Owen Gingerich of Harvard (a former student of Shapley), justly praises Dr. Gonzalez for this in his recent book, God’s Universe (Harvard University Press, 2006), itself yet one more example of a scientist offering a religious interpretation of his work to the general public. I have to wonder*if Professor Gingerich were also a junior faculty member at Iowa State, would Dr. Avalos now be organizing another petition drive against this particular book, for its defense of a designed universe?

Well, yes, probably he would, Ted. That's what this is all about. People who are not materialists or are willing to question materialism or support or praise or protect anyone who is not a materialist are supposed to just shut up and die. And the only important question is, where was any given non-materialist while all this was happening. All the rest is, uh, academic.

By all means, read the rest of his letter excerpt here.

I’m not completely surprised by this because Davis - whom I have accused in the past of being a mugwump* - has expressed distinct discomfort in the past with the right of people like religion prof Hector Avalos to poison the atmosphere with persecutions against working scientists like Gonzalez.

[*]Yes, Avalos is indeed the bowdlerizing little crank who wants to cut out the violent parts out of the Bible. Honest. Sigh.

And THAT guy got dozens and dozens of faculty to sign his petition against Gonzalez? Yes, it is long past time someone opened a window on American academic life ….

*A mugwump has his head on one side of the fence and his wump on the other. I withdraw the accusation. - d.

My other blog is the Mindful Hack, which keeps tabs on neuroscience and the mind.

If you like this blog, check out my book on the intelligent design controversy, By Design or by Chance?. You can read excerpts as well.

Are you looking for one of the following stories?

NEW!! Evolution in the light of intelligent design - look up intelligent design topics here.

Animations of life inside the cell, indexed, for your convenience.

Anti-God crusade ... no, really! My recent series on the spate of anti-God books, teen blasphemy challenge, et cetera, and the mounting anxiety of materialist atheists that lies behind it.

Catholic Church A summary of the Catholic Church's entry into the controversy, essentially on the side of ID.