Empirical/Rational Science Explained
Posted: Sat Jan 27, 2007 12:18 pm
I am an Empiricist
This is vital to understand, as homeopaths ..........& clarify for
ourselves. We cannot be both
"Harris Coulter has written an academic and fascinating threevolume set of
books on the history of Western Medicine. Each volume is important to those
who wish to understand the roots of modern medicine and to learn how and
why many "nonorthodox" practices did not gain general acceptance in the
health care system."
"Whether the Rationalist or the Empirical school of medicine appears to be
more appropriate does not depend upon which approach seems more scientific.
It ultimately depends upon which set of assumptions, summarized above, the
practitioner has about human beings, about the definition of health, about
obtaining knowledge, and about understanding the universe."
"If the Empirical tradition embodies the characteristics of a scientific
methodology to understand and heal the human being more fully, why hasn’t
it gained greater acceptance? The three main reasons that Coulter describes
for why the Rationalist rather than the Empirical school gained general
acceptance were: (1) political: the differences in the professional
cohesion amongst the members within each school; (2) social: the
differences in the practitioner/patient relationship; and (3) economic: the
differences in the economics of being a practitioner in the different
schools."
Empirical/Rational Science Explained
http://www.healthwwweb.com/overview/ullman.html
The Philosophical and Historical Roots of Holistic Approaches to Health
DIVIDED LEGACY, Harris L. Coulter, Ph.D. Washington, D.C.: Wehawken Book
Company, 1975. 3 volumes (537 pages, 785 pages, 546 pages).
Available via Homeopathic.com
Ullman, Dana. A summary and review of DIVIDED LEGACY —
A History of the Schism in Medical Thought
Harris Coulter has written an academic and fascinating threevolume set of
books on the history of Western Medicine. Each volume is important to those
who wish to understand the roots of modern medicine and to learn how and
why many "nonorthodox" practices did not gain general acceptance in the
health care system. The three books are of particular importance to those
involved in holistic approaches to health because Coulter traces the
history of the holistic practices that are often ignored or criticized
unfairly in most medical history texts.
The three volumes are scholarly written and are thoroughly footnoted with
references to thousands of original writings. Volume I describes the era
from Hippocrates (400 B.C.) to Paracelsus (1600). Volume II discusses
medicine in Europe from 1600 to 1850. Volume III covers medicine in America
from 1800 to 1914.
The title, Divided Legacy, refers to the two predominant schools of thought
or traditions that have dominated Western medical history. Although the two
schools were not formalized with every practitioner aligning him/herself
with one or the other school, Coulter’s analysis shows convincing evidence
how some of the best physicians and healers believed and practiced mainly
in one or the other tradition.
One school was known as the Rationalist school, while the other was the
Empirical school. The Rationalist school sought to understand health,
disease, and the treatment of disease in an analytical fashion; It sought
causes of disease and methods of treatment in a systematic and rational
manner. It focused on the anatomical and biochemical nature of the human
being as ways to understanding the parts of the organism and how to make
them function properly.
The Empirical school of thought held different assumptions about the ways
of acquiring knowledge on health, disease, and the treatment of disease. It
did not look for nor seek to understand the causes of disease. It sought
and developed ways that worked whether or not the practitioner understood
at first why the methods worked. Although Empirical practitioners usually
had theories on how and why their methods worked, they recognized that
their theories were always secondary to the fact that the method worked.
Over long periods of time and through close observations, empirical
practitioners developed their own time tested and systematic health
practices that were not based on an analytical understanding of cause and
effect.
The Rationalist school, of which modern medicine is the latest development,
has claimed the title of being the "scientific" medicine. At the same time,
it asserted that other approaches to understanding health and to the
treatment of disease were unscientific and were often to be considered as
"quackery." The meaning and significance of scientific methodology are
discussed in detail in volumes II and III of Divided Legacy.
Coulter points out that although the Rationalists explained why their
methods worked or didn’t work, their explanations were soon disproven and
were replaced by a new set of "facts." Comparatively, Coulter describes the
scientific characteristics of the Empirical school and how and why their
observations and their health practices have been utilized for long periods
of time. Whether the outcomes have been successful has not been adequately
determined statistically; however, the great numbers of people over many
centuries who have made use of the various Empirical health practices
should encourage clinicians and researchers to look more closely at
Empirical perspectives and practices.
It should be clarified that the definition and the historical use of the
word "empirical" refers to the dependence upon observation and experience
alone without the use of theory or reductionistic methodology. Although
modern medicine is considered a highly empirical science, it is much more
rationally based than empirically based. Modern medicine's emphasis on
reductionistic methodology is different from traditional empirical
practices that gauged improvement in health in holistic terms. Despite
this, Coulter does not infer that the Rationalist’s practices don’t have
some empirical basis or that Empirical practices don’t have some rational
basis. Coulter’s books help us understand the distinct primary emphases of
the two schools of medical thought.
See Table 1 for an outline of the basic assumptions of the Rationalist and
Empirical schools of medicine.
Whether the Rationalist or the Empirical school of medicine appears to be
more appropriate does not depend upon which approach seems more scientific.
It ultimately depends upon which set of assumptions, summarized above, the
practitioner has about human beings, about the definition of health, about
obtaining knowledge, and about understanding the universe.
Coulter’s preference or bias for the Empirical school is made known
throughout the book. Coulter includes in each chapter statements of some of
the great physicians/healers/theorists in history. Thomas Sydenham, a
celebrated English physician in the seventeenth century who is considered
the English Hippocrates, referred to the work of the Rationalists as "the
art of talking rather than the art of healing." (Vol. II, p. 681)
Dr. Samuel Hahnemann, eighteenth century German physician and father of
homeopathic medicine,* criticized the Rationalist school stating, "the vain
fallacy that the business of the medical profession is to explain
everything." (Vol. II, p. 327) Rather, they have never yet how to cure our
fellow men in a manner that shall satisfy our conscience, but only how we
may present to the people an appearance of learned wisdom and deep
penetration." (Vol. II, p. 329) More trenchantly, Hahnemann asserts,
They [the Rationalists] placed the essence of the medical art, and their
own chief pride, in explaining even much of the inexplicable. They imagined
it impossible to treat scientifically the abnormal states of the human body
(diseases) without possessing a tangible idea of the fundamental laws of
the normal and abnormal conditions of the human frame. Our systembuilders
delighted in these metaphysical heights where it was so easy to win
territory; for in the boundless reaches of speculation everyone becomes a
ruler who can effectually elevate himself beyond the domain of the senses.
The superhuman aspect they derived from the erection of these stupendous
castles in the air concealed their poverty in the art of healing. (Vol. II,
p. 328)
Hahnemann’s argument clearly had a strong basis during his life in the
early 1800s when the majority of physicians practiced what most people
today believe was dangerous medicine.
Through Coulter’s exhaustive research he also quotes from well known
Rationalists to support his thesis. Coulter quotes Claude Bernard, father
of experimental physiology, who in turn quotes Baron Cuvier as saying, "All
parts of a living body are interrelated; they can act only insofar as they
act all together; trying to separate one from the whole means transferring
it to the realm of dead substances; it means entirely changing its
essence." Bernard replies to this by stating, "If the above objections [to
mechanistic physiology, a part of Rationalist thought are well founded, we
should either have to recognize that determinism is impossible in the
phenomena of life, and this would be simply denying biological science; or
else we should have to acknowledge that vital force must be studied by
special methods and that science of life must rest on different principles
from the science of inorganic bodies." (Vol. II, p. 669)
Coulter’s point is that we do need special methods to study the vital
energy of the human organism, and in fact, many of these methods have been
in the developmental stages for over two centuries. These are the
characteristics of the Empirical tradition.
If the Empirical tradition embodies the characteristics of a scientific
methodology to understand and heal the human being more fully, why hasn’t
it gained greater acceptance? The three main reasons that Coulter describes
for why the Rationalist rather than the Empirical school gained general
acceptance were: (1) political: the differences in the professional
cohesion amongst the members within each school; (2) social: the
differences in the practitioner/patient relationship; and (3) economic: the
differences in the economics of being a practitioner in the different schools.
See Table 2 for a comparison of these reasons.
One characteristic of the interaction between the two traditions that
cannot be discerned in the above type of comparison is Coulter’s
observation that the Empiricists were the agents of creative discovery,
while the Rationalists tended to trim and adjust knowledge to the
institutional and socioeconomic needs of their profession. Coulter cites
this recurrent pattern throughout history in fascinating detail. Through
the elaborate theories that the Rationalist erect; it seems that they are
on the right track. Coulter, however, gives a greater perspective on
medical history and shows that too often the Rationalists have been
travelling down a narrow track.
It is essential to add that Coulter’s deep appreciation of Empirical
practices as a scientific discipline with historytested results does not
preclude the appropriate, use of our present highly developed Rational
medicine. However, whether one’s background is the Rational or Empirical
tradition, Coulter makes a strong case for much greater investigation and
utilization of Empirical perspectives and practices than is occurring at
the present time.
Although one may say that "holistic health" is simply the most recent name
for the Empirical tradition, it is important to recognize that some
nonorthodox practices and practitioners follow the general assumptions of
the Empirical tradition, while others definitely do not. In any case,
anyone who is interested in the emerging field of holistic health would
learn much about the roots of this approach to health by reading any or all
of Harris Coulter’s Divided Legacy. These books should be read by those
involved in the holistic health movement and by those who want to know why
our current medical care system is not responsive to the needs of our society.
Dana Ullman, M.P.H.
Berkeley, California
www.homeopathic.com
* Coulter considers homeopathy to be the sophisticated manifestation of the
Empirical tradition. Although its greatest popularity in the U.S. was in
the late 18005 and early 1900s when between 20% to 25% of urban physicians
considered themselves homeopaths, it sharply declined after this time
except For the past decade when it has begun to experience a resurgence.
NOTE (Regarding Table 1 and Table 2): This comparison describes the general
view of the two schools of thought. Not every practitioner consistently
believed or practiced each assumption. Some of the descriptions represent
the extremist and the more classic assumptions of the two schools. Coulter
documents how most of these assumptions pervade the thinking and practice
of the majority of health practitioners
About Dana Ullman
Table 1
The Empirical and Rational Schools of Medicine—A Comparison
SEE WEBPAGE OR WORD DOCUMENT
The Empirical School
The Rational School
Table 2
Coulter's Analysis of Rational School's Greater Acceptence Compared to The
Empirical School
SEE WEBPAGE OR WORD DOC
Integrative Medical Arts Group, Inc.
P.O. Box 671
Beaverton, OR 97075 USA
503.628.0319
HealthWWWeb Home * Health Info/Tools * Resource Guide* Health Links * News
& Events
Professional Resources * Professional Forums * IMA Homepage * IBIS Software
* Contact Us
All materials copyright 19921999 Integrative Medical Arts Group, Inc.
and/or their authors. Reprinted with permission. "HealthWWWeb," "IBIS:
Integrative BodyMind Information System" and "scienceofnature" are
trademarks of Integrative Medical Arts Group, Inc.
Disclaimer
http://www.HealthWWWeb.com IBISmedical.com Integrative Medical Arts
Group, Inc. http://www.integrativemedicalarts.com
This is vital to understand, as homeopaths ..........& clarify for
ourselves. We cannot be both
"Harris Coulter has written an academic and fascinating threevolume set of
books on the history of Western Medicine. Each volume is important to those
who wish to understand the roots of modern medicine and to learn how and
why many "nonorthodox" practices did not gain general acceptance in the
health care system."
"Whether the Rationalist or the Empirical school of medicine appears to be
more appropriate does not depend upon which approach seems more scientific.
It ultimately depends upon which set of assumptions, summarized above, the
practitioner has about human beings, about the definition of health, about
obtaining knowledge, and about understanding the universe."
"If the Empirical tradition embodies the characteristics of a scientific
methodology to understand and heal the human being more fully, why hasn’t
it gained greater acceptance? The three main reasons that Coulter describes
for why the Rationalist rather than the Empirical school gained general
acceptance were: (1) political: the differences in the professional
cohesion amongst the members within each school; (2) social: the
differences in the practitioner/patient relationship; and (3) economic: the
differences in the economics of being a practitioner in the different
schools."
Empirical/Rational Science Explained
http://www.healthwwweb.com/overview/ullman.html
The Philosophical and Historical Roots of Holistic Approaches to Health
DIVIDED LEGACY, Harris L. Coulter, Ph.D. Washington, D.C.: Wehawken Book
Company, 1975. 3 volumes (537 pages, 785 pages, 546 pages).
Available via Homeopathic.com
Ullman, Dana. A summary and review of DIVIDED LEGACY —
A History of the Schism in Medical Thought
Harris Coulter has written an academic and fascinating threevolume set of
books on the history of Western Medicine. Each volume is important to those
who wish to understand the roots of modern medicine and to learn how and
why many "nonorthodox" practices did not gain general acceptance in the
health care system. The three books are of particular importance to those
involved in holistic approaches to health because Coulter traces the
history of the holistic practices that are often ignored or criticized
unfairly in most medical history texts.
The three volumes are scholarly written and are thoroughly footnoted with
references to thousands of original writings. Volume I describes the era
from Hippocrates (400 B.C.) to Paracelsus (1600). Volume II discusses
medicine in Europe from 1600 to 1850. Volume III covers medicine in America
from 1800 to 1914.
The title, Divided Legacy, refers to the two predominant schools of thought
or traditions that have dominated Western medical history. Although the two
schools were not formalized with every practitioner aligning him/herself
with one or the other school, Coulter’s analysis shows convincing evidence
how some of the best physicians and healers believed and practiced mainly
in one or the other tradition.
One school was known as the Rationalist school, while the other was the
Empirical school. The Rationalist school sought to understand health,
disease, and the treatment of disease in an analytical fashion; It sought
causes of disease and methods of treatment in a systematic and rational
manner. It focused on the anatomical and biochemical nature of the human
being as ways to understanding the parts of the organism and how to make
them function properly.
The Empirical school of thought held different assumptions about the ways
of acquiring knowledge on health, disease, and the treatment of disease. It
did not look for nor seek to understand the causes of disease. It sought
and developed ways that worked whether or not the practitioner understood
at first why the methods worked. Although Empirical practitioners usually
had theories on how and why their methods worked, they recognized that
their theories were always secondary to the fact that the method worked.
Over long periods of time and through close observations, empirical
practitioners developed their own time tested and systematic health
practices that were not based on an analytical understanding of cause and
effect.
The Rationalist school, of which modern medicine is the latest development,
has claimed the title of being the "scientific" medicine. At the same time,
it asserted that other approaches to understanding health and to the
treatment of disease were unscientific and were often to be considered as
"quackery." The meaning and significance of scientific methodology are
discussed in detail in volumes II and III of Divided Legacy.
Coulter points out that although the Rationalists explained why their
methods worked or didn’t work, their explanations were soon disproven and
were replaced by a new set of "facts." Comparatively, Coulter describes the
scientific characteristics of the Empirical school and how and why their
observations and their health practices have been utilized for long periods
of time. Whether the outcomes have been successful has not been adequately
determined statistically; however, the great numbers of people over many
centuries who have made use of the various Empirical health practices
should encourage clinicians and researchers to look more closely at
Empirical perspectives and practices.
It should be clarified that the definition and the historical use of the
word "empirical" refers to the dependence upon observation and experience
alone without the use of theory or reductionistic methodology. Although
modern medicine is considered a highly empirical science, it is much more
rationally based than empirically based. Modern medicine's emphasis on
reductionistic methodology is different from traditional empirical
practices that gauged improvement in health in holistic terms. Despite
this, Coulter does not infer that the Rationalist’s practices don’t have
some empirical basis or that Empirical practices don’t have some rational
basis. Coulter’s books help us understand the distinct primary emphases of
the two schools of medical thought.
See Table 1 for an outline of the basic assumptions of the Rationalist and
Empirical schools of medicine.
Whether the Rationalist or the Empirical school of medicine appears to be
more appropriate does not depend upon which approach seems more scientific.
It ultimately depends upon which set of assumptions, summarized above, the
practitioner has about human beings, about the definition of health, about
obtaining knowledge, and about understanding the universe.
Coulter’s preference or bias for the Empirical school is made known
throughout the book. Coulter includes in each chapter statements of some of
the great physicians/healers/theorists in history. Thomas Sydenham, a
celebrated English physician in the seventeenth century who is considered
the English Hippocrates, referred to the work of the Rationalists as "the
art of talking rather than the art of healing." (Vol. II, p. 681)
Dr. Samuel Hahnemann, eighteenth century German physician and father of
homeopathic medicine,* criticized the Rationalist school stating, "the vain
fallacy that the business of the medical profession is to explain
everything." (Vol. II, p. 327) Rather, they have never yet how to cure our
fellow men in a manner that shall satisfy our conscience, but only how we
may present to the people an appearance of learned wisdom and deep
penetration." (Vol. II, p. 329) More trenchantly, Hahnemann asserts,
They [the Rationalists] placed the essence of the medical art, and their
own chief pride, in explaining even much of the inexplicable. They imagined
it impossible to treat scientifically the abnormal states of the human body
(diseases) without possessing a tangible idea of the fundamental laws of
the normal and abnormal conditions of the human frame. Our systembuilders
delighted in these metaphysical heights where it was so easy to win
territory; for in the boundless reaches of speculation everyone becomes a
ruler who can effectually elevate himself beyond the domain of the senses.
The superhuman aspect they derived from the erection of these stupendous
castles in the air concealed their poverty in the art of healing. (Vol. II,
p. 328)
Hahnemann’s argument clearly had a strong basis during his life in the
early 1800s when the majority of physicians practiced what most people
today believe was dangerous medicine.
Through Coulter’s exhaustive research he also quotes from well known
Rationalists to support his thesis. Coulter quotes Claude Bernard, father
of experimental physiology, who in turn quotes Baron Cuvier as saying, "All
parts of a living body are interrelated; they can act only insofar as they
act all together; trying to separate one from the whole means transferring
it to the realm of dead substances; it means entirely changing its
essence." Bernard replies to this by stating, "If the above objections [to
mechanistic physiology, a part of Rationalist thought are well founded, we
should either have to recognize that determinism is impossible in the
phenomena of life, and this would be simply denying biological science; or
else we should have to acknowledge that vital force must be studied by
special methods and that science of life must rest on different principles
from the science of inorganic bodies." (Vol. II, p. 669)
Coulter’s point is that we do need special methods to study the vital
energy of the human organism, and in fact, many of these methods have been
in the developmental stages for over two centuries. These are the
characteristics of the Empirical tradition.
If the Empirical tradition embodies the characteristics of a scientific
methodology to understand and heal the human being more fully, why hasn’t
it gained greater acceptance? The three main reasons that Coulter describes
for why the Rationalist rather than the Empirical school gained general
acceptance were: (1) political: the differences in the professional
cohesion amongst the members within each school; (2) social: the
differences in the practitioner/patient relationship; and (3) economic: the
differences in the economics of being a practitioner in the different schools.
See Table 2 for a comparison of these reasons.
One characteristic of the interaction between the two traditions that
cannot be discerned in the above type of comparison is Coulter’s
observation that the Empiricists were the agents of creative discovery,
while the Rationalists tended to trim and adjust knowledge to the
institutional and socioeconomic needs of their profession. Coulter cites
this recurrent pattern throughout history in fascinating detail. Through
the elaborate theories that the Rationalist erect; it seems that they are
on the right track. Coulter, however, gives a greater perspective on
medical history and shows that too often the Rationalists have been
travelling down a narrow track.
It is essential to add that Coulter’s deep appreciation of Empirical
practices as a scientific discipline with historytested results does not
preclude the appropriate, use of our present highly developed Rational
medicine. However, whether one’s background is the Rational or Empirical
tradition, Coulter makes a strong case for much greater investigation and
utilization of Empirical perspectives and practices than is occurring at
the present time.
Although one may say that "holistic health" is simply the most recent name
for the Empirical tradition, it is important to recognize that some
nonorthodox practices and practitioners follow the general assumptions of
the Empirical tradition, while others definitely do not. In any case,
anyone who is interested in the emerging field of holistic health would
learn much about the roots of this approach to health by reading any or all
of Harris Coulter’s Divided Legacy. These books should be read by those
involved in the holistic health movement and by those who want to know why
our current medical care system is not responsive to the needs of our society.
Dana Ullman, M.P.H.
Berkeley, California
www.homeopathic.com
* Coulter considers homeopathy to be the sophisticated manifestation of the
Empirical tradition. Although its greatest popularity in the U.S. was in
the late 18005 and early 1900s when between 20% to 25% of urban physicians
considered themselves homeopaths, it sharply declined after this time
except For the past decade when it has begun to experience a resurgence.
NOTE (Regarding Table 1 and Table 2): This comparison describes the general
view of the two schools of thought. Not every practitioner consistently
believed or practiced each assumption. Some of the descriptions represent
the extremist and the more classic assumptions of the two schools. Coulter
documents how most of these assumptions pervade the thinking and practice
of the majority of health practitioners
About Dana Ullman
Table 1
The Empirical and Rational Schools of Medicine—A Comparison
SEE WEBPAGE OR WORD DOCUMENT
The Empirical School
The Rational School
Table 2
Coulter's Analysis of Rational School's Greater Acceptence Compared to The
Empirical School
SEE WEBPAGE OR WORD DOC
Integrative Medical Arts Group, Inc.
P.O. Box 671
Beaverton, OR 97075 USA
503.628.0319
HealthWWWeb Home * Health Info/Tools * Resource Guide* Health Links * News
& Events
Professional Resources * Professional Forums * IMA Homepage * IBIS Software
* Contact Us
All materials copyright 19921999 Integrative Medical Arts Group, Inc.
and/or their authors. Reprinted with permission. "HealthWWWeb," "IBIS:
Integrative BodyMind Information System" and "scienceofnature" are
trademarks of Integrative Medical Arts Group, Inc.
Disclaimer
http://www.HealthWWWeb.com IBISmedical.com Integrative Medical Arts
Group, Inc. http://www.integrativemedicalarts.com