Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part C 32 (3):435-455 (2001)
|Abstract||In 1905 two different etiologic agents for syphilis were proposed in Berlin, one, the Cytorrhyctes luis, by John Siegel, the other, Spirochaete pallida, by Fritz Schaudinn. Both scientists were pupils of Franz Eilhard Schulze, and were outsiders to the Berlin medical establishment. Both belonged to the same thought collective, used the same thought style, and started from the same supposition that the etiologic agent of syphilis must be a protist. Both used the same morphological approach, the same microscopes and the same stains. Both presented their findings in the same societies, used the same rhetoric, published in the same journals, used the same arguments to criticise each other's shortcomings. Both were backed by powerful institutions and enlisted the support of prestigious patrons. Within half a year, the scientific community at large had in its overwhelming majority accepted Schaudinn's results and rejected those of Siegel. Social forces thus cannot be shown to have played any role in deciding the issue. Ludwik Fleck's suggestion that 'appropriate influence' and a 'proper measure of publicity throughout the thought collective' would have been sufficient for Siegel's ideas to win the day is untenable.|
|Keywords||No keywords specified (fix it)|
|Categories||categorize this paper)|
|Through your library||Configure|
Similar books and articles
Brian S. Baigrie (1988). Siegel on the Rationality of Science. Philosophy of Science 55 (3):435-441.
J. Lindenmann (2002). Siegel, Schaudinn, Fleck and the Etiology of Syphilis: A Response to Henk Van den Belt. Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part C 33 (4):751-752.
Ludwik Fleck (1979). Genesis and Development of a Scientific Fact. University of Chicago Press.
Stig Brorson (2000). Ludwik Fleck on Proto-Ideas in Medicine. Medicine, Health Care and Philosophy 3 (2):147-152.
Henk van den Belt (2002). Ludwik Fleck and the Causative Agent of Syphilis: Sociology or Pathology of Science? A Rejoinder to Jean Lindenmann. Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part C 33 (4):733-750.
David Stump (1988). The Role of Skill in Experimentation: Reading Ludwik Fleck's Study of the Wasserman Reaction as an Example of Ian Hacking's Experimental Realism. PSA: Proceedings of the Biennial Meeting of the Philosophy of Science Association 1988:302 - 308.
Henk van den Belt (2011). The Collective Construction of a Scientific Fact: A Re-Examination of the Early Period of the Wassermann Reaction (1906–1912). [REVIEW] Social Epistemology 25 (4):311 - 339.
Nicola Mößner (2011). Thought Styles and Paradigms—a Comparative Study of Ludwik Fleck and Thomas S. Kuhn. Studies in History and Philosophy of Science 42 (2):362–371.
Claus Zittel (2012). Ludwik Fleck and the Concept of Style in the Natural Sciences. Studies in East European Thought 64 (1-2):53-79.
H. Belt (2002). Ludwik Fleck and the Causative Agent of Syphilis: Sociology or Pathology of Science? A Rejoinder to Jean Lindenmann. Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part C 33 (4):733-750.
Sorry, there are not enough data points to plot this chart.
Added to index2009-01-28
Total downloads1 ( #291,386 of 722,815 )
Recent downloads (6 months)0
How can I increase my downloads?