3 ms·

> If he decided not to chlorinate the well in order to fully decide which specific bacteria was causing cholera, that would have been stupid. Thankfully that i

> If he decided not to chlorinate the well in order to fully decide which specific bacteria was causing cholera, that would have been stupid. Thankfully that is not the choice anyone is confronted with. John Snow identified and treated the well and also proposed the first substantially complete and correct model for the cause of the disease. Both efforts informed each other and contributed to the solution which may not have been possible otherwise. Proponents of the miasma theory surely thought he was wasting his time. Fillipo Pacini isolated the bacterium the very same year. How wonderful it is that we can all collaborate to solve many aspects of the same problem.

estearum 1y ago
Instead of continuing to muddy the conversation why don’t you just settle it by providing a clear answer to this question?: What should we do differently depending on the outcome? The miasma alternative for cholera is another excellent illustration of my point, not yours. The answer to whether miasma theory or contaminated wells was correct very obviously had bearing on how you’d mitigate the problem, and this characteristic was totally evident even before answering the question. If someone could specifically state what we should do differently depending on the answer, I’m amenable to it. But you haven’t done that because the answer is: nothing!
- timschmidt 1y ago
  Other folks here have tried to have that conversation with you: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45502746 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45502746 Feel free to respond to them.
  - estearum 1y ago
    No actually if you read two comments further, you’ll notice they said “indeed” it doesn’t make a difference. Then tried a poorly reasoned analogy to reach their prior conclusion indirectly. I note that, once again, you can’t answer the simple question that’d settle the debate in your favor.
    - timschmidt 1y ago
      We understand their responses very differently then. I trust that others will make their own decisions having read the thread.

estearum 1y ago

Instead of continuing to muddy the conversation why don’t you just settle it by providing a clear answer to this question?: What should we do differently depending on the outcome? The miasma alternative for cholera is another excellent illustration of my point, not yours. The answer to whether miasma theory or contaminated wells was correct very obviously had bearing on how you’d mitigate the problem, and this characteristic was totally evident even before answering the question. If someone could specifically state what we should do differently depending on the answer, I’m amenable to it. But you haven’t done that because the answer is: nothing!

timschmidt 1y ago
Other folks here have tried to have that conversation with you: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45502746 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45502746 Feel free to respond to them.
- estearum 1y ago
  No actually if you read two comments further, you’ll notice they said “indeed” it doesn’t make a difference. Then tried a poorly reasoned analogy to reach their prior conclusion indirectly. I note that, once again, you can’t answer the simple question that’d settle the debate in your favor.
  - timschmidt 1y ago
    We understand their responses very differently then. I trust that others will make their own decisions having read the thread.