has philosophy lost its way?

[Iwannaplato]

Philosophy, however, is a timeless discipline, meaning that the questions that were asked thousands of years ago are still unsolved and relevant today. The “why” questions about existence don’t have definitive answers, and we will spend all of our lives trying to sort through them.

But Yeo admits in the first post that he got answers from Seneca.

Seneca’s words provided applicable advice on leading a life well-lived. Inevitably, his work led me to those of other Stoics, which then led me to Buddhism (the two schools of thought are very similar), which led me to Taoism – all of which further solidified my love for philosophy.

And presumably he also got some useful answers from Buddhism and Taoism. Otherwise, why would he want to study more?

Or even, dare one say it, engage in the practices.

[phyllo]

Or simply been more tactful. But yes, philosophy in all parties might have helped. A couple of things stand out in the story 1) the conservatism of believers of all kinds 2) threats to ego and power will generally get resisted strongly.

It's actually more interesting and there is more philosophy involved than my quote suggests:

Friedrich Wieger (1821–1890) was an obstetrician from Strasbourg who visited Semmelweis at the end of May 1847, at the time when Semmelweis, then the assistant (equivalent of senior registrar or chief resident) introduced chlorine hand disinfection in the first maternity clinic of the Vienna General Hospital (Allegemeines Krankenhaus –AKH). Wieger was thus an eyewitness to the new practice of chlorine hand disinfection, and his article was the first to publish the actual results of Semmelweis's experiment. This represented the strongest evidence Semmelweis had to prove his theory of the cause of childbed fever. An earlier editorial announcing Semmelweis's discovery, published in December 1847 by the Austrian physician Ferdinand Ritter von Hebra, had not actually published Semmelweis's results; it merely compared two unrepresentative averages to make it appear that hand disinfection had reduced the MMR in the first maternity clinic from 18 per cent to 2.45 per cent.Footnote 6 There was no known response to this editorial. Another one, published in April 1848, compared Semmelweis's discovery to Edward Jenner's discovery of the smallpox vaccine, but published no additional data.Footnote 7 There was, again, no known response to the second editorial, notwithstanding that both editorials requested ‘directors of obstetrical institutions’ to report ‘confirming or disconfirming results to the editors of this journal’.Footnote 8

Wieger's article not only mentioned other sources of infection besides cadavers (as did Hebra's earlier editorial), but also described a case in which a midwife had infected many women ‘by using one single, badly cleaned sponge to clean the genitalia of women’, and thereby confirmed Semmelweis's conclusion that the causative agent could come from sources other than cadavers.Footnote 9 But Wieger did more: he published for the first time the MMR in the first maternity clinic of the AKH for the years 1840–1848. These statistics showed that, each year, between 238 and 521 women had died of childbed fever in the first maternity clinic before chlorine hand disinfection was introduced, whereas only forty-five women died of childbed fever in 1848, the first full year after chlorine hand disinfection was implemented. Nevertheless, an editorial in the Gazette médicale de Paris rejected this evidence as proof that hand disinfection had caused the reduction in mortality, for the following reason:

We do not wish to assert that the doctrine derived from these facts is intrinsically and completely erroneous; we simply believe that this doctrine does not follow logically from these facts; for example, the remarkable fall over a year and a half, starting from when the hand washing measure was put into practice, could be due to a completely different circumstance. Who is not familiar with the capricious and singular fluctuations of epidemics, and especially of epidemics of puerperal fever?Footnote 10

In other words, it did not follow logically from the fact that the MMR fell after chlorine hand disinfection was implemented that hand disinfection had caused the fall, as this ‘could be due to a completely different circumstance’, especially as the incidence of childbed fever was known to fluctuate so widely: post hoc did not mean propter hoc. This previously unrecognized objection seems to have been the dominant objection to Semmelweis's proof, at least in Europe.

We have previously shown that Semmelweis's chief, Johann Klein, rejected Semmelweis's evidence that chlorine hand disinfection could prevent childbed fever for this same reason.Footnote 11 Evidence for this is contained in documents Erna Lesky discovered in the Austrian archives, and published in a monograph in 1964, but which had not previously been translated into English.Footnote 12 However, a strong hint that Semmelweis and the young doctors visiting Semmelweis were aware of Klein's objection is contained in a letter that Heinrich Hermann Schwartz, assistant to Gustav Adolph Michaelis, who was director of the maternity hospital in Kiel, wrote to Michaelis on 21 December 1849 summarizing Semmelweis's work, and which Carter and Tate have translated into English. In his letter, Schwarz concluded, about the effectiveness of chlorine hand disinfection, that ‘while one dare not with certainty declare propter hoc, one can at least say post hoc, given the remarkable change that has occurred in the sanitary conditions of the institutions’.Footnote 13

https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals ... AC2CA17C52

Post hoc ergo propter hoc (Latin: 'after this, therefore because of this') is an informal fallacy that states: "Since event Y followed event X, event Y must have been caused by event X." It is often shortened simply to post hoc fallacy.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Post_hoc_ergo_propter_hoc

[Iwannaplato]

Post hoc ergo propter hoc (Latin: 'after this, therefore because of this') is an informal fallacy that states: "Since event Y followed event X, event Y must have been caused by event X." It is often shortened simply to post hoc fallacy.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Post_hoc_ergo_propter_hoc

Of course rejecting it as causal wasn't well founded either. They could have dived in and done a controlled study.

[phyllo]

That's why they did the rabbit studies.

We have also shown that Semmelweis undertook experiments in domestic rabbits with Rokitansky's assistant, Georg Maria Lautner, specifically to rebut this very objection to his proof, and not, as Scholl has contended, to prove the mechanism of causation, i.e. pathogenesis, of childbed fever.Footnote 14 The purpose of these animal experiments was to prove that decaying animal-organic matter was not only a necessary cause of childbed fever, but could also be contingently a sufficient cause (contingent on there being a point of ingress for the decaying matter into the blood stream, and on the animal-organic matter having reached a sufficient stage of putrefaction).

Finally, Wieger stated that he had conducted experiments in domestic rabbits, but was unable to induce infection in the animals.Footnote 25 He did not give any details of the experiments, except to say they were conducted in pregnant and recently delivered rabbits.Footnote

Same cambridge.org source.

Which don't seem to be entirely conclusive.

[phyllo]

Is it ethical to run an experiment which exposes pregnant women to a potentially lethal disease?

Not on the list of unsolved and unanswered problems, is it?

Does that mean that progress has been made in philosophy?

[Iwannaplato]

That's why they did the rabbit studies.

We have also shown that Semmelweis undertook experiments in domestic rabbits with Rokitansky's assistant, Georg Maria Lautner, specifically to rebut this very objection to his proof, and not, as Scholl has contended, to prove the mechanism of causation, i.e. pathogenesis, of childbed fever.Footnote 14 The purpose of these animal experiments was to prove that decaying animal-organic matter was not only a necessary cause of childbed fever, but could also be contingently a sufficient cause (contingent on there being a point of ingress for the decaying matter into the blood stream, and on the animal-organic matter having reached a sufficient stage of putrefaction).

Finally, Wieger stated that he had conducted experiments in domestic rabbits, but was unable to induce infection in the animals.Footnote 25 He did not give any details of the experiments, except to say they were conducted in pregnant and recently delivered rabbits.Footnote

Same cambridge.org source.

Which don't seem to be entirely conclusive.

Well, it's good that guy tried. But it seems better to get two hospitals, have one be the control, the other to wash those hands good.

Here's an interesting side note. Midwives have emphasized cleanliness in childbirth going back to ancient Egypt and in many cultures including many indigenous cultures. In China, for example, they sterilized birthing tools going way back in time.

And it's a bit odd. Since the natural response to contact to decaying flesh, I would think would be to keep away from it, not contact it directly, certainly not eat it - rotting animal flesh also. Humans have aversion to the consumption of animals found dead.

I realize this was pre-Darwin, but you'd think that the default position would be on the hand cleaning side or even the division of labor side.

[Iwannaplato]

Is it ethical to run an experiment which exposes pregnant women to a potentially lethal disease?

If the standard practice is no protection. Unless there is some reason to think cleanliness is dangerous, and why did the midwives seem to understand this?

The default was not cleaning.

You could possibly have divided the labor also. IOW staff who deal with corpses don't deal with birthing mothers/operations.

It's strange also. Many tribes used antiseptic herbs for wounds and infections. And then also emphasized cleanliness around childbirth. This was also true in European traditions. Why this didn't seep through to medical practice I don't know? It seems the more obvious default.

[Iwannaplato]

Not on the list of unsolved and unanswered problems, is it?

Does that mean that progress has been made in philosophy?

It's a nice step in my book.

[iambiguous]

Philosophy Has Lost Its Way
By Lawrence Yeo

The question of why we’re here (aka the meaning of life) is just as relevant and pressing today as it was in ancient times. The question of happiness is something that refuses to have a clear and cogent answer, yet we will never stop asking it.

Now that we have a few truly serious philosophers posting here, perhaps they can pin down the meaning of life. Then taking that into account they can pin down in turn a clear and cogent answer -- a resolution? -- in regard to all of the moral conflagrations that have plagued the human species going back to the ancient philosophers.

In fact, the truly hardcore moral objectivists among us have resolved all of the conflicting goods that provoke us, haven't they?

In philosophy, it is often the pursuit of the question that is more interesting than the answer, and this paradox is what makes the field much more of an art, and less of a science.

Let's start with...dasein?

Then move on to these:

Why something instead of nothing?
Why this something and not something else?
Where does the human condition fit into the whole understanding of this particular something itself?
What of solipsism, sim worlds, dream worlds, the Matrix?
What of the multiverse?
What of God?

Bonus question: If Mary is determined by her brain wholly in sync with the laws of matter to abort her unborn fetus, is she still morally responsible for doing so?

[Belinda]

The question about Semmelweiss and puerperal sepsis is not a philosophical question. It's a question that is best answered by human science and in particular by the economic benefit of a male dominated society. Gender roles were such that higher status men , who were destined to be earners, colonisers, and exploiters ,on principle wore status clothing that would not be washed, and had hands that need not be washed. Doctors to a degree high status , and they needed to try to maintain a higher status then their patient, and it follows that the decor of their profession was mystified including included their instruments , their clothing, their demeanor, their houses, and their persons.The process of mystification is a means to cement high status.

It's more effective to seek an explanation from the human sciences before we seek a philosophical explanation or an explanation more suited to the natural sciences. I admire Semmelweiss for facing up to the hardship of puerperal sepsis by means of scientific method; and the human sciences were not developed enough as sciences .Moreover the concept of 'causal organism' was not as established as it is now, and even more recently superseded by what formerly were circumstantial evidences such as social class or capitalist exploitation of food production which is a main cause of food poisoning.

[phyllo]

The question of why we’re here (aka the meaning of life) is just as relevant and pressing today as it was in ancient times.

Why is it "pressing"?

You can't function unless you know "the meaning of life"? You can't live?

I asked my cat about it and she was not impressed by my questions.

The question of happiness is something that refuses to have a clear and cogent answer, yet we will never stop asking it.

That one is solved.
https://greatergood.berkeley.edu/articl ... ulfillment

[Belinda]

The question of why we’re here (aka the meaning of life) is just as relevant and pressing today as it was in ancient times.

Why is it "pressing"?

You can't function unless you know "the meaning of life"? You can't live?

I asked my cat about it and she was not impressed by my questions.

The question of happiness is something that refuses to have a clear and cogent answer, yet we will never stop asking it.

That one is solved.
https://greatergood.berkeley.edu/articl ... ulfillment

The question of why we are here is in practise the same as the question of how much responsibility ought I to take. It is therefore even more relevant than it was "in ancient times" ,before we underwent the scientific and philosophical Enlightenment.

[phyllo]

Take full responsibility for your actions.

[Iwannaplato]

The question of why we’re here (aka the meaning of life) is just as relevant and pressing today as it was in ancient times.

I don't think I think like this. I don't wander around wondering (pressed) about THE meaning of life. At least I don't think so. I certainly mull over what has meaning to me and others. I struggle get what I want and avoid what I don't want. I do wonder what is going on, and perhaps that's what people mean by the meaning of life. But it seems a rather distanced thing.

What if you found out the meaning of life and it wasn't related to your values?

Would you go, Oh, good to know. I'll have that as the meaning. ?

[Gary Childress]

The question of why we’re here (aka the meaning of life) is just as relevant and pressing today as it was in ancient times.

I don't think I think like this. I don't wander around wondering (pressed) about THE meaning of life. At least I don't think so. I certainly mull over what has meaning to me and others. I struggle get what I want and avoid what I don't want. I do wonder what is going on, and perhaps that's what people mean by the meaning of life. But it seems a rather distanced thing.

What if you found out the meaning of life and it wasn't related to your values?

Would you go, Oh, good to know. I'll have that as the meaning. ?

I suppose seeking the "meaning of life" could be a case of finding out exactly what our values are or what is truly of value and from there having a place to start.