9 ms·

>He publicly berated people who disagreed with him and made some influential enemies. This piqued my curiosity. Managed to dig up this quote attributed to him

by im2w1l 12y ago

>He publicly berated people who disagreed with him and made some influential enemies. This piqued my curiosity. Managed to dig up this quote attributed to him by "Forgotten Ideas, Neglected Pioneers" >In this massacre you, Herr Professor, have participated. The homicide must cease, and with the object of bringing this homicide to an end, I shall keep watch, and every man who dares to spread dangerious errors regarding puerperal fever will find me an active opponent. For me there is no other means for checking the murder than to unsparingly unmask my opponents. I can kind of see why people didn't like him.

bainsfather 12y ago
His statements and arguments were correct - that ought to be all that mattered.
- semperfaux 12y ago
  Your italics are telling. Messages never, ever exist in a vacuum; if they did, RMS would not alienate people with his usually-correct but often-irrationally-irate rants. Communication is not just about your message, it's about the interpretation of your message. If you don't take that into account, you can be right all day long, but you may fail to be constructive or effective, and you share that failure with the person who -- perhaps reasonably -- fails to take your poorly-conveyed criticism well.
  - bainsfather 12y ago
    You are right, I was saying how things ought to be, not how they often are. In this case, many people were being killed due to the doctors' actions. Despite the very good evidence, the doctors preferred to play politics, and continue to kill/murder their patients rather than lose face. A most extreme example of the triumph of self-interest over reason and honesty.
    - pdabbadabba 12y ago
      I'm of two minds. Sure, it would be great if scientists were able to ignore the personality and tone of the person making an observation or advancing a theory. But it would also be even better if everyone (including people with big, lifesaving ideas) could exercise a little self-restraint and show some respect for the emotions of others, if only because that's the way you get other human beings to listen to you (but also, hopefully, just because it's the right thing to do).
- soneca 12y ago
  You know now that they are correct. The other doctors didn't know for sure then. I think is undeniable that, even with the doubt of that being correct, they (the other doctors) should have behaved more scientifically about it. But when you are not sure if the statements are correct, it doesn't help if the proponent attracts antipathy. In the end, I believe the veredict is, with justice, that the medical society at the time failed as a whole. But we might have had a different outcome if Dr. Semmelweis had more political skills. I don't want to acuse the man of anything in here, and of course this a personal, subjective, unfounded opinion; but it might be that his proud about being correct was more important to him than his wish to save more lives. Even unjusticed heroes have flaws, especially vanity related ones. I am sounding like devil's advocate here, but I really don't want to blame Dr. Semmelweis of nothing here, nor discredit his accomplishments. I just want to give some perspective here, a human perspective. Science is a lot about humanity. Both in the human beings learning about a major scientific breakthrough and the human beings responsible for the breakthrough. If you want to change the world, you have to make sacrificies. Sometimes in your pride.
  - bainsfather 12y ago
    Several points: (1) "doctors didn't know for sure" - that is a usual state for a doctor - e.g. 'the symptoms of this patient strongly suggest x, but it could also be y or z. Given the data, the best course of action is ...'. Do you imagine that a doctor even today, examining a patient with e.g. persistent headaches, or chest pains, or ..., knows 'for sure'? (2) I am not a medic. But a few times I have helped people in critical condition (accidents etc) - in all cases, I did my absolute best to save the persons' lives. If paramedic's had shown up saying 'you xxxxing idiot, you ought to be doing xyz' I would have been happy to accept their advice, no matter how they 'presented' it. I hope you would also. (3) In farming work in the past, I have often made mistakes (either ignorance or error) when caring for animals, sometimes those animals died due to my mistakes. Being told 'you xxxx xxxx why didn't you do xyz' afterwards, meant that I did better next time. I sure as hell didn't think 'oh, I don't like the way that is being presented, I think I'll just ignore it'. To be clear, I am condemning the doctors of the time. I am not necessarily disagreeing with you about whether or not Semmelweis could have been more tactful - I don't know enough to really comment (e.g. it might be that he was tactful initially, but as time went on and he was ignored, he 'turned up the volume').
- programminggeek 12y ago
  How you deliver information is often as important as the information itself. It's never just about the facts.
  - code_duck 12y ago
    I believe the point of the comment you are replying to you is to say that ideally, that shouldn't matter and people should simply pay attention to the message... especially when it's something as important as people dying. As you note, however, that's not the case. People's precious feelings are sensitive and must be approached with tact.
    - giarc 12y ago
      You're correct. When Buffet talked about "coddling" the super rich, I realized that word describes how we treat physicians. We coddle them. I work with physicians on a daily basis, and you have to treat them like children. You can't talk bad about them, you can't imply they are doing something wrong (they have to come to that conclusion), you have to act like you think they know everything. For a group that relies on hard facts and science, you can't just say to them "You guys don't wash your hands, here is the data". They will literally get up and walk out of the room. I realize that I am just as guilty, but we coddle physicians.
beagle3 12y ago
> I can kind of see why people didn't like him. I think you are completely mistaken here. His personality (as evidenced by this quote) is actually why you have heard of him. People didn't like him because he claimed they were doing wrong. And they disliked him even more because he had the statistics to prove it. Had he been humble, they would have disliked him just as much, but would have found him easy to ignore - and you would likely not have heard of him. I have detailed a modern case in an answer below [0]. Had semmelweis provided a good scientific explanation, some of his opponents would have probably conceded defeat, but I'm quite sure others would have found something else to latch on to. It still happens. See e.g. Atkins (of the Atkins diet fame). See, e.g. Shechtman (recent noble laureate, of the quasi crystal fame). You've heard of them because they did not shut up. But that's not the reason people didn't like them. [0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8901440 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8901440

by im2w1l 12y ago

bainsfather 12y ago

His statements and arguments were correct - that ought to be all that mattered.

semperfaux 12y ago
Your italics are telling. Messages never, ever exist in a vacuum; if they did, RMS would not alienate people with his usually-correct but often-irrationally-irate rants. Communication is not just about your message, it's about the interpretation of your message. If you don't take that into account, you can be right all day long, but you may fail to be constructive or effective, and you share that failure with the person who -- perhaps reasonably -- fails to take your poorly-conveyed criticism well.
- bainsfather 12y ago
  You are right, I was saying how things ought to be, not how they often are. In this case, many people were being killed due to the doctors' actions. Despite the very good evidence, the doctors preferred to play politics, and continue to kill/murder their patients rather than lose face. A most extreme example of the triumph of self-interest over reason and honesty.
  - pdabbadabba 12y ago
    I'm of two minds. Sure, it would be great if scientists were able to ignore the personality and tone of the person making an observation or advancing a theory. But it would also be even better if everyone (including people with big, lifesaving ideas) could exercise a little self-restraint and show some respect for the emotions of others, if only because that's the way you get other human beings to listen to you (but also, hopefully, just because it's the right thing to do).
soneca 12y ago
You know now that they are correct. The other doctors didn't know for sure then. I think is undeniable that, even with the doubt of that being correct, they (the other doctors) should have behaved more scientifically about it. But when you are not sure if the statements are correct, it doesn't help if the proponent attracts antipathy. In the end, I believe the veredict is, with justice, that the medical society at the time failed as a whole. But we might have had a different outcome if Dr. Semmelweis had more political skills. I don't want to acuse the man of anything in here, and of course this a personal, subjective, unfounded opinion; but it might be that his proud about being correct was more important to him than his wish to save more lives. Even unjusticed heroes have flaws, especially vanity related ones. I am sounding like devil's advocate here, but I really don't want to blame Dr. Semmelweis of nothing here, nor discredit his accomplishments. I just want to give some perspective here, a human perspective. Science is a lot about humanity. Both in the human beings learning about a major scientific breakthrough and the human beings responsible for the breakthrough. If you want to change the world, you have to make sacrificies. Sometimes in your pride.
- bainsfather 12y ago
  Several points: (1) "doctors didn't know for sure" - that is a usual state for a doctor - e.g. 'the symptoms of this patient strongly suggest x, but it could also be y or z. Given the data, the best course of action is ...'. Do you imagine that a doctor even today, examining a patient with e.g. persistent headaches, or chest pains, or ..., knows 'for sure'? (2) I am not a medic. But a few times I have helped people in critical condition (accidents etc) - in all cases, I did my absolute best to save the persons' lives. If paramedic's had shown up saying 'you xxxxing idiot, you ought to be doing xyz' I would have been happy to accept their advice, no matter how they 'presented' it. I hope you would also. (3) In farming work in the past, I have often made mistakes (either ignorance or error) when caring for animals, sometimes those animals died due to my mistakes. Being told 'you xxxx xxxx why didn't you do xyz' afterwards, meant that I did better next time. I sure as hell didn't think 'oh, I don't like the way that is being presented, I think I'll just ignore it'. To be clear, I am condemning the doctors of the time. I am not necessarily disagreeing with you about whether or not Semmelweis could have been more tactful - I don't know enough to really comment (e.g. it might be that he was tactful initially, but as time went on and he was ignored, he 'turned up the volume').
programminggeek 12y ago
How you deliver information is often as important as the information itself. It's never just about the facts.
- code_duck 12y ago
  I believe the point of the comment you are replying to you is to say that ideally, that shouldn't matter and people should simply pay attention to the message... especially when it's something as important as people dying. As you note, however, that's not the case. People's precious feelings are sensitive and must be approached with tact.
  - giarc 12y ago
    You're correct. When Buffet talked about "coddling" the super rich, I realized that word describes how we treat physicians. We coddle them. I work with physicians on a daily basis, and you have to treat them like children. You can't talk bad about them, you can't imply they are doing something wrong (they have to come to that conclusion), you have to act like you think they know everything. For a group that relies on hard facts and science, you can't just say to them "You guys don't wash your hands, here is the data". They will literally get up and walk out of the room. I realize that I am just as guilty, but we coddle physicians.

beagle3 12y ago

> I can kind of see why people didn't like him. I think you are completely mistaken here. His personality (as evidenced by this quote) is actually why you have heard of him. People didn't like him because he claimed they were doing wrong. And they disliked him even more because he had the statistics to prove it. Had he been humble, they would have disliked him just as much, but would have found him easy to ignore - and you would likely not have heard of him. I have detailed a modern case in an answer below [0]. Had semmelweis provided a good scientific explanation, some of his opponents would have probably conceded defeat, but I'm quite sure others would have found something else to latch on to. It still happens. See e.g. Atkins (of the Atkins diet fame). See, e.g. Shechtman (recent noble laureate, of the quasi crystal fame). You've heard of them because they did not shut up. But that's not the reason people didn't like them. [0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8901440 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8901440