4 ms·

Something I've thought a lot about: in most fields of study, modern scholars revere the 'old masters' that came centuries before for their genius: think Newton,

Something I've thought a lot about: in most fields of study, modern scholars revere the 'old masters' that came centuries before for their genius: think Newton, DaVinci, Socrates, Galileo. However, in medicine, most doctors will tell you that the doctors from 200+ years ago were idiots that did more harm than good. Why is that? Is modern medicine too hubristic? Were the doctors of ages old really that dumb? Is this a trend that will repeat itself in 200 years?

pyuser583 5y ago
I really question the “old master” idea. Especially in art and art history. Most artists (art consumers anyway) are very big on newness and rejecting tradition. Art historians even more so.
vlovich123 5y ago
The first doctor discovered washing hands improved outcomes ~174 years ago & was initially dismissed[1]. It was later confirmed a couple of decades later when germ theory & bactereology[2] was born. Our understanding of how to have successful organ transplants only really took off in the past ~80 years as doctors started to better understand rejection. At the same time, in the 20th century, we got all sorts of new scanners & equipment to visualize the internals of the human body that we've never had before. Finally, the 20th & 21st centuries brought along revolutions in computing, genomics, & pharmacology. So yes, 200 years ago doctors knew a great deal far less than today. I'm sure a doctor 200 years in the future looking back on today will feel similarly. There's still so much we don't know & there's a lot of guesswork involved. I wouldn't say they were idiots but the outcomes were certainly not at levels we'd accept today (just as the outcomes today won't be acceptable 200 years from now). FWIW, the same is true in other disciplines. The 20th century marked a rapid exponential curve in learning. No one really studies any of the masters you note except for maybe Newton & Galileo. The former because the kinematics equations are actually extremely good approximations for Einstein's equations (& also his work on light and lenses remains accurate and foundational to this day). The latter as a warning of the dangers of putting ideology ahead of science and scientific thinking. Galileo's heliocentric model isn't actually used today except as a way to teach kids about the solar system because it's really simple & is good enough at that level (his work on gravity was an important influence for Newton's ideas on the topic). [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ignaz_Semmelweis https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ignaz_Semmelweis [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Louis_Pasteur https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Louis_Pasteur
- gregmac 5y ago
  High school science still (afaik) teaches the Bohr model [1] of the atom, because it works well enough for that level. This also leads to a great moment the next year when the teacher leads off with something along the lines of "Remember the Bohr model? Well, forget it: it's wrong." Fun that this causes some students to be outraged, but it's also a great lesson in the scientific method - or at least my (excellent) science teacher used it for that and it made a lasting impact on me. [1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bohr_model https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bohr_model
  - stephen_g 5y ago
    I'm still annoyed whenever I think back at that, at being taught something that was wrong as if it was true. It costs nothing to say, "We're going to learn a model of the atom - the reality is more complex but this will work for now." The way it is often done just creates trust issues for people who really care about accuracy...
    - adgjlsfhk1 5y ago
      My highschool chem teacher was great and would start about 1 sentence a class with "These are lies, but they are still useful"

pyuser583 5y ago

I really question the “old master” idea. Especially in art and art history. Most artists (art consumers anyway) are very big on newness and rejecting tradition. Art historians even more so.

vlovich123 5y ago

The first doctor discovered washing hands improved outcomes ~174 years ago & was initially dismissed[1]. It was later confirmed a couple of decades later when germ theory & bactereology[2] was born. Our understanding of how to have successful organ transplants only really took off in the past ~80 years as doctors started to better understand rejection. At the same time, in the 20th century, we got all sorts of new scanners & equipment to visualize the internals of the human body that we've never had before. Finally, the 20th & 21st centuries brought along revolutions in computing, genomics, & pharmacology. So yes, 200 years ago doctors knew a great deal far less than today. I'm sure a doctor 200 years in the future looking back on today will feel similarly. There's still so much we don't know & there's a lot of guesswork involved. I wouldn't say they were idiots but the outcomes were certainly not at levels we'd accept today (just as the outcomes today won't be acceptable 200 years from now). FWIW, the same is true in other disciplines. The 20th century marked a rapid exponential curve in learning. No one really studies any of the masters you note except for maybe Newton & Galileo. The former because the kinematics equations are actually extremely good approximations for Einstein's equations (& also his work on light and lenses remains accurate and foundational to this day). The latter as a warning of the dangers of putting ideology ahead of science and scientific thinking. Galileo's heliocentric model isn't actually used today except as a way to teach kids about the solar system because it's really simple & is good enough at that level (his work on gravity was an important influence for Newton's ideas on the topic). [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ignaz_Semmelweis https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ignaz_Semmelweis [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Louis_Pasteur https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Louis_Pasteur

gregmac 5y ago
High school science still (afaik) teaches the Bohr model [1] of the atom, because it works well enough for that level. This also leads to a great moment the next year when the teacher leads off with something along the lines of "Remember the Bohr model? Well, forget it: it's wrong." Fun that this causes some students to be outraged, but it's also a great lesson in the scientific method - or at least my (excellent) science teacher used it for that and it made a lasting impact on me. [1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bohr_model https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bohr_model
- stephen_g 5y ago
  I'm still annoyed whenever I think back at that, at being taught something that was wrong as if it was true. It costs nothing to say, "We're going to learn a model of the atom - the reality is more complex but this will work for now." The way it is often done just creates trust issues for people who really care about accuracy...
  - adgjlsfhk1 5y ago
    My highschool chem teacher was great and would start about 1 sentence a class with "These are lies, but they are still useful"