The Semmelweis reflex
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
17-01-2015, 10:47 AM
The Semmelweis reflex
Imagine that you are a physician on a hospital staff and another doctor at the hospital discovers a procedure that dramatically reduces the death rate of its patients. Wouldn’t you and the other doctors at the hospital eagerly adopt the procedure and practice it yourselves? The answer is so obvious to most people that it seems stupid to even ask such a question. But a doctor name Ignaz Semmelweis did discover such a process and the other doctors rejected it. Here is Wikipedia’s description of what happened.

Quote:Ignaz Philipp Semmelweis was a Hungarian physician of German extraction now known as an early pioneer of antiseptic procedures. Described as the “savior of mothers”, Semmelweis discovered that the incidence of puerperal fever could be drastically cut by the use of hand disinfection in obstetrical clinics. Puerperal fever was common in mid-19th-century hospitals and often fatal, with mortality at 10%–35%. Semmelweis proposed the practice of washing with chlorinated lime solutions in 1847 while working in Vienna General Hospital’s First Obstetrical Clinic, where doctors’ wards had three times the mortality of midwives’ wards. He published a book of his findings in Etiology, Concept and Prophylaxis of Childbed Fever.

Despite various publications of results where hand-washing reduced mortality to below 1%, Semmelweis’s observations conflicted with the established scientific and medical opinions of the time and his ideas were rejected by the medical community. Some doctors were offended at the suggestion that they should wash their hands and Semmelweis could offer no acceptable scientific explanation for his findings. Semmelweis’s practice earned widespread acceptance only years after his death, when Louis Pasteur confirmed the germ theory and Joseph Lister, acting on the French microbiologist’s research, practiced and operated, using hygienic methods, with great success. In 1865, Semmelweis was committed to an asylum, where he died at age 47 after being beaten by the guards, only 14 days after he was committed.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ignaz_Semmelweis

It seems unbelievable that doctors would ignore this clear evidence that hand washing could reduce the death rate among patients. The reason for their reaction what that this practice contradicted generally held beliefs regarding the cause of disease.

Quote: Semmelweis’s observations conflicted with the established scientific and medical opinions of the time. The theory of diseases was highly influenced by ideas of an imbalance of the basic “four humours” in the body, a theory known as dyscrasia, for which the main treatment was bloodlettings. Medical texts at the time emphasized that each case of disease was unique, the result of a personal imbalance, and the main difficulty of the medical profession was to establish precisely each patient’s unique situation, case by case.

The findings from autopsies of deceased women also showed a confusing multitude of physical signs, which emphasized the belief that puerperal fever was not one, but many different, yet unidentified, diseases. Semmelweis’s main finding — that all instances of puerperal fever could be traced back to only one single cause: lack of cleanliness — was simply unacceptable. His findings also ran against the conventional wisdom that diseases spread in the form of “bad air”, also known as miasmas or vaguely as “unfavourable atmospheric-cosmic-terrestrial influences”. Semmelweis’s groundbreaking idea was contrary to all established medical understanding.

Eventually Dr. Semmelweis’s ideas were vindicated and the treatment he received led to the coining of a new term, the Semmelweis reflex.

Quote:The so-called Semmelweis reflex — a metaphor for a certain type of human behaviour characterized by reflex-like rejection of new knowledge because it contradicts entrenched norms, beliefs or paradigms — is named after Semmelweis, whose perfectly reasonable hand-washing suggestions were ridiculed and rejected by his contemporaries.

We can see the Semmelweis reflex in operation today in one area of scientific study, the origin and age of the earth.

The established scientific belief is that the earth is billions of years old and life evolved gradually over this long period of time. The fossils that are found all over the earth are supposedly evidence of this evolutionary process.

Some people have a different belief regarding the origin of the earth. We believe the Bible is true and God created the earth in six days. We believe there was a worldwide flood and the fossils are evidence that this flood actually occurred.

There is scientific evidence that supports the Bible. For example, the October, 2012, issue of Answers magazine, which is published by Answers in Genesis, contains a report on some evidence that shows the earth can’t be as old as is generally believed. You can read this report here:

https://answersingenesis.org/evidence-fo...ung-earth/

Of course the Semmelweiss reflex will cause many to either ignore this evidence or try to explain it away. If you are willing to consider the possibility that the popular beliefs might be wrong here are some other sites you might be interested in:

http://www.piltdownsuperman.com/

http://biblicalgeology.net/

http://sixdaysblog.com/

http://scienceagainstevolution.info/

The information in ancient libraries came from real minds of real people. The far more complex information in cells came from the far more intelligent mind of God.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
17-01-2015, 10:58 AM
RE: The Semmelweis reflex
At work.

Okay.... information viewed, thought about and the thing is.....

Too many different areas/fields of scientific investigation disagree with (A) An Earth as young as 6K years old or (B)Any sign of some kind of 'Global' inundation.

So there's that.

Perhaps you would like to review some actual science literarure?

As any source which can and has been shown to lie and distort information is not to be trusted.

Much cheers to all.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like Peebothuhul's post
17-01-2015, 11:04 AM
RE: The Semmelweis reflex
You understand it works both ways right?

There was for years people believing the Bible was true... and over time scientific study has given data that it isn't as valid as what testings the world through data. Then there are those who stick strongly to their biblical background of a source for knowledge... exemplifying this semmelweis reflex.

Atomic theories of quantum mechanics, understandings in astrophysics, and deeper scientific studies have shown a trend of scientific fields being open and accepting new facts as they come.

It's a scientific path that is far different from the previous 19th century era of fields of scientific study being staunchly opposed to change and allowing progress to only happen through generational shifts with older scientists dying off with their ideas. Those ideas like Germ theory, Vaccinations, etc. were denied by the older generations. Not only Semmelweis went through this but Louie Pasteur did as well and had try use public gimmicks to get people to see his effects. Still when people had a less open mindset, they didn't change from their views.

"Allow there to be a spectrum in all that you see" - Neil Degrasse Tyson
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like ClydeLee's post
17-01-2015, 11:26 AM (This post was last modified: 17-01-2015 07:05 PM by Bucky Ball.)
RE: The Semmelweis reflex
(17-01-2015 10:47 AM)theophilus Wrote:  Imagine that you are a physician on a hospital staff and another doctor at the hospital discovers a procedure that dramatically reduces the death rate of its patients. Wouldn’t you and the other doctors at the hospital eagerly adopt the procedure and practice it yourselves? The answer is so obvious to most people that it seems stupid to even ask such a question. But a doctor name Ignaz Semmelweis did discover such a process and the other doctors rejected it. Here is Wikipedia’s description of what happened.

Quote:Ignaz Philipp Semmelweis was a Hungarian physician of German extraction now known as an early pioneer of antiseptic procedures. Described as the “savior of mothers”, Semmelweis discovered that the incidence of puerperal fever could be drastically cut by the use of hand disinfection in obstetrical clinics. Puerperal fever was common in mid-19th-century hospitals and often fatal, with mortality at 10%–35%. Semmelweis proposed the practice of washing with chlorinated lime solutions in 1847 while working in Vienna General Hospital’s First Obstetrical Clinic, where doctors’ wards had three times the mortality of midwives’ wards. He published a book of his findings in Etiology, Concept and Prophylaxis of Childbed Fever.

Despite various publications of results where hand-washing reduced mortality to below 1%, Semmelweis’s observations conflicted with the established scientific and medical opinions of the time and his ideas were rejected by the medical community. Some doctors were offended at the suggestion that they should wash their hands and Semmelweis could offer no acceptable scientific explanation for his findings. Semmelweis’s practice earned widespread acceptance only years after his death, when Louis Pasteur confirmed the germ theory and Joseph Lister, acting on the French microbiologist’s research, practiced and operated, using hygienic methods, with great success. In 1865, Semmelweis was committed to an asylum, where he died at age 47 after being beaten by the guards, only 14 days after he was committed.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ignaz_Semmelweis

It seems unbelievable that doctors would ignore this clear evidence that hand washing could reduce the death rate among patients. The reason for their reaction what that this practice contradicted generally held beliefs regarding the cause of disease.

Quote: Semmelweis’s observations conflicted with the established scientific and medical opinions of the time. The theory of diseases was highly influenced by ideas of an imbalance of the basic “four humours” in the body, a theory known as dyscrasia, for which the main treatment was bloodlettings. Medical texts at the time emphasized that each case of disease was unique, the result of a personal imbalance, and the main difficulty of the medical profession was to establish precisely each patient’s unique situation, case by case.

The findings from autopsies of deceased women also showed a confusing multitude of physical signs, which emphasized the belief that puerperal fever was not one, but many different, yet unidentified, diseases. Semmelweis’s main finding — that all instances of puerperal fever could be traced back to only one single cause: lack of cleanliness — was simply unacceptable. His findings also ran against the conventional wisdom that diseases spread in the form of “bad air”, also known as miasmas or vaguely as “unfavourable atmospheric-cosmic-terrestrial influences”. Semmelweis’s groundbreaking idea was contrary to all established medical understanding.

Eventually Dr. Semmelweis’s ideas were vindicated and the treatment he received led to the coining of a new term, the Semmelweis reflex.

Quote:The so-called Semmelweis reflex — a metaphor for a certain type of human behaviour characterized by reflex-like rejection of new knowledge because it contradicts entrenched norms, beliefs or paradigms — is named after Semmelweis, whose perfectly reasonable hand-washing suggestions were ridiculed and rejected by his contemporaries.

We can see the Semmelweis reflex in operation today in one area of scientific study, the origin and age of the earth.

The established scientific belief is that the earth is billions of years old and life evolved gradually over this long period of time. The fossils that are found all over the earth are supposedly evidence of this evolutionary process.

Some people have a different belief regarding the origin of the earth. We believe the Bible is true and God created the earth in six days. We believe there was a worldwide flood and the fossils are evidence that this flood actually occurred.

There is scientific evidence that supports the Bible. For example, the October, 2012, issue of Answers magazine, which is published by Answers in Genesis, contains a report on some evidence that shows the earth can’t be as old as is generally believed. You can read this report here:

https://answersingenesis.org/evidence-fo...ung-earth/

Of course the Semmelweiss reflex will cause many to either ignore this evidence or try to explain it away. If you are willing to consider the possibility that the popular beliefs might be wrong here are some other sites you might be interested in:

http://www.piltdownsuperman.com/

http://biblicalgeology.net/

http://sixdaysblog.com/

http://scienceagainstevolution.info/

Fallacy of the false analogy. Some popular beliefs were in fact proven wrong, some right. Creationism/ID HAS ALREADY been debunked as false by science. There is actually not a shred of valid scientific evidence that Creationism holds ANY scientific truth. Eventually Semmelweis was vindicated by EVIDENCE. There is none that Creationism is true, and in fact MOUNTAINS that it is not. Creationism is DEAD. In the 20th Century it moved to Intelligent Design.
Here is a complete refutation on BOTH. Dump your delusion Theo ... grow up. There ain't no Santa Claus. Behe-The-Fool HIMSELF admitted in the Dover trial HE was attempting to CHANGE definitions so as to FORCE Creationism/ID to fit science's definitions, (and the entire courtroom laughed at him). Your dishonest attempt to conflate these two different situations simply demonstrates how desperate you people are to maintain ANY credibility.

There is NOTHING about the Bible that's true. Ancient desert dwellers had NO WAY of knowing what happened billions of years before. It was cooked up primarily as a political set of texts to unify tribes after the Exile. There was NO flood. http://www.thethinkingatheist.com/forum/...rce-thread post #36

The fact is, Theophilius YOU NEED the Babble, as your mental health depends on it. You have no other way to explain to yourself the world you observe around you, as you have no education. It's not a matter of science or even really theology. It's about your mental stability. You would lose yours without the crutch of Fundamentalism.

The fact that in 2015 you would do this feeble attempt to say that this is STILL the way science works simply demonstrates your ignorance.
In fact new discoveries BACKED UP BY REAL DATA are QUICKLY accepted all the time. Science now is very competitive. You and your Creationist cronies may think the world still works like it did in the 19th Century, as that's basically where you operate, but guess what ? It doesn't.

Oh well. Try again. Troll away, another day. "Evangelical Christian" is THE VERY SAME POSITION as "militant atheism".




Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein God has a plan for us. Please stop screwing it up with your prayers.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 5 users Like Bucky Ball's post
17-01-2015, 12:35 PM
RE: The Semmelweis reflex
How very enlightening.

However, if many of us in here rejected new evidence and knowledge because of our beliefs, we would still be Christians.

"Behind every great pirate, there is a great butt."
-Guybrush Threepwood-
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 6 users Like undergroundp's post
17-01-2015, 01:16 PM
RE: The Semmelweis reflex
I witnessed the Semmelweiss Reflex today when talking to a muslim.

Hard to believe that people still hold to the Allah Theory when there is no evidence to support it.

Consider

Thanks for advice though. I must handle my frustration betterly if I don't want to end up in a padded cell.

Cheers.

Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
17-01-2015, 04:47 PM (This post was last modified: 17-01-2015 04:53 PM by TheInquisition.)
RE: The Semmelweis reflex
(17-01-2015 10:47 AM)theophilus Wrote:  Imagine that you are a physician on a hospital staff and another doctor at the hospital discovers a procedure that dramatically reduces the death rate of its patients. Wouldn’t you and the other doctors at the hospital eagerly adopt the procedure and practice it yourselves? The answer is so obvious to most people that it seems stupid to even ask such a question. But a doctor name Ignaz Semmelweis did discover such a process and the other doctors rejected it. Here is Wikipedia’s description of what happened.

Quote:Ignaz Philipp Semmelweis was a Hungarian physician of German extraction now known as an early pioneer of antiseptic procedures. Described as the “savior of mothers”, Semmelweis discovered that the incidence of puerperal fever could be drastically cut by the use of hand disinfection in obstetrical clinics. Puerperal fever was common in mid-19th-century hospitals and often fatal, with mortality at 10%–35%. Semmelweis proposed the practice of washing with chlorinated lime solutions in 1847 while working in Vienna General Hospital’s First Obstetrical Clinic, where doctors’ wards had three times the mortality of midwives’ wards. He published a book of his findings in Etiology, Concept and Prophylaxis of Childbed Fever.

Despite various publications of results where hand-washing reduced mortality to below 1%, Semmelweis’s observations conflicted with the established scientific and medical opinions of the time and his ideas were rejected by the medical community. Some doctors were offended at the suggestion that they should wash their hands and Semmelweis could offer no acceptable scientific explanation for his findings. Semmelweis’s practice earned widespread acceptance only years after his death, when Louis Pasteur confirmed the germ theory and Joseph Lister, acting on the French microbiologist’s research, practiced and operated, using hygienic methods, with great success. In 1865, Semmelweis was committed to an asylum, where he died at age 47 after being beaten by the guards, only 14 days after he was committed.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ignaz_Semmelweis

It seems unbelievable that doctors would ignore this clear evidence that hand washing could reduce the death rate among patients. The reason for their reaction what that this practice contradicted generally held beliefs regarding the cause of disease.

Quote: Semmelweis’s observations conflicted with the established scientific and medical opinions of the time. The theory of diseases was highly influenced by ideas of an imbalance of the basic “four humours” in the body, a theory known as dyscrasia, for which the main treatment was bloodlettings. Medical texts at the time emphasized that each case of disease was unique, the result of a personal imbalance, and the main difficulty of the medical profession was to establish precisely each patient’s unique situation, case by case.

The findings from autopsies of deceased women also showed a confusing multitude of physical signs, which emphasized the belief that puerperal fever was not one, but many different, yet unidentified, diseases. Semmelweis’s main finding — that all instances of puerperal fever could be traced back to only one single cause: lack of cleanliness — was simply unacceptable. His findings also ran against the conventional wisdom that diseases spread in the form of “bad air”, also known as miasmas or vaguely as “unfavourable atmospheric-cosmic-terrestrial influences”. Semmelweis’s groundbreaking idea was contrary to all established medical understanding.

Eventually Dr. Semmelweis’s ideas were vindicated and the treatment he received led to the coining of a new term, the Semmelweis reflex.

Quote:The so-called Semmelweis reflex — a metaphor for a certain type of human behaviour characterized by reflex-like rejection of new knowledge because it contradicts entrenched norms, beliefs or paradigms — is named after Semmelweis, whose perfectly reasonable hand-washing suggestions were ridiculed and rejected by his contemporaries.

We can see the Semmelweis reflex in operation today in one area of scientific study, the origin and age of the earth.

The established scientific belief is that the earth is billions of years old and life evolved gradually over this long period of time. The fossils that are found all over the earth are supposedly evidence of this evolutionary process.

Some people have a different belief regarding the origin of the earth. We believe the Bible is true and God created the earth in six days. We believe there was a worldwide flood and the fossils are evidence that this flood actually occurred.

There is scientific evidence that supports the Bible. For example, the October, 2012, issue of Answers magazine, which is published by Answers in Genesis, contains a report on some evidence that shows the earth can’t be as old as is generally believed. You can read this report here:

https://answersingenesis.org/evidence-fo...ung-earth/

Of course the Semmelweiss reflex will cause many to either ignore this evidence or try to explain it away. If you are willing to consider the possibility that the popular beliefs might be wrong here are some other sites you might be interested in:

http://www.piltdownsuperman.com/

http://biblicalgeology.net/

http://sixdaysblog.com/

http://scienceagainstevolution.info/

Confirmation bias

Answers in Genesis is a towering monument to ignorance with zero scientific credibility, I notice they attack C14 dating, but they don't mention all of the other radioisotope dating methods, along with tree ring dating, thermoluminescence dating, etc.

There is a mountain of data that falsifies every aspect of this childish myth.

Let's start with three different pieces of evidence that have been dated using tree ring data that are older than the Noahtic flood:

1. An unnamed bristlecone pine tree that's 5064 years old.
2. Methuselah a 4846 year old bristelcone pine
3. Prometheus a 4862 year old bristelcone pine tree.

All three of these trees are older than the Noahtic flood by several hundred years based off of the flood date of 2348 BC according to Answers in Genesis

How would three different trees not only survive the flood, but show no evidence in their tree ring patterns of a flood?

Also, the pyramids in Giza were built in 2560 BC, 200 years before the mythical flood, they survived the flood as well as showing no significant damage from a flood. This not only disproves a worldwide flood, it disproves any significant regional flooding in that era. The Egyptians apparently never noticed a world-wide flood occurring in 2348 BC AS THEIR WRITTEN RECORDS REFLECT!

BTW- The pyramids were built long before the tower of Babel, their Egyptian hieroglyphics demonstrating that written Egyptian existed long before the tower of Babel event around 2200 BC as well as mountains of written language from Sumerian as well as ancient written language from Neolithic sites in China dating back to 4000 BC.

The very existence of the pyramids debunk the flood and Tower of Babel myths. The pyramids stand to this day, we can go there and visit them and take pictures of them. Where is this ark at?
Or do I not see it because I'm an "evolutionist" or "secularist"?

Gods derive their power from post-hoc rationalizations. -The Inquisition

Using the supernatural to explain events in your life is a failure of the intellect to comprehend the world around you. -The Inquisition
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like TheInquisition's post
17-01-2015, 06:14 PM
RE: The Semmelweis reflex
Semmelweis had the facts on his side and so do we. The idea of a creator god violates the primacy of existence and therefore is not true. Period.

Do not lose your knowledge that man's proper estate is an upright posture, an intransigent mind and a step that travels unlimited roads. - Ayn Rand.

Don't sacrifice for me, live for yourself! - Me

The only alternative to Objectivism is some form of Subjectivism. - Dawson Bethrick
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
17-01-2015, 06:24 PM
RE: The Semmelweis reflex
You cited Answers in Genesis as a valid scientific publication.
That's cute.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 8 users Like pablo's post
17-01-2015, 06:33 PM
RE: The Semmelweis reflex
(17-01-2015 10:47 AM)theophilus Wrote:  There is scientific evidence that supports the Bible.

Scientific evidence by definition means that it has been obtained using the scientific method. This means that it has also been peer reviewed by scientists.

Maybe you should provide some evidence supporting what the Bible says that has been published in a scientific publication ...
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: