-
Carl G. Hempel, Germany (1905-1997)
I.
Literal Comprehension
Context: This essay is written by Carl
G. Hempel, Germany (1905-1997). In this essay, he has discussed about
scientific inquiry as a process of making hypotheses and testing them to prove.
To understand how scientific inquiry is
made, we can take example of a Hungarian physician Ignaz Semmelweis who worked
from 1844 to 1648 at the Vienna General Hospital. He had a problem. A large
proportion of the women who were delivered in the First Maternity Division of
the hospital contracted a serious and fatal illness known as puerperal fever or
childhood fever. The death rate was on average was 8 percent, whereas the
figures were much low in the adjacent Second Maternity Division of the same
hospital.
Dr.
Semmelweis examined some hypotheses while trying to find the actual cause of
the death. First, he guessed that the high death rate in the First Division was
the result of the epidemic influence. He tested this hypothesis by reasoning
that how this epidemic was limited to the First Division without affecting the
Second Division. If it were an epidemic like cholera, why didn’t it affect the
whole town? Why weren’t the women who had delivered the baby on the way to
hospital affected by the disease? On the basis of these reasons, he concluded
that childbed fever wasn’t the result of the epidemic influence. Second, he
assumed that overcrowding might be the cause of the high death rate in the
first division. But due to the fear, most of the patients crowded into the
Second Division where the death rate was much lower. So, this hypothesis also
couldn’t be proved. Third, the commission report in 1846 blamed to the injuries
resulting from rough examination by medical students of causing the high death
rate. But Semmelweis refused it on the basis of the three reasons that the injuries
resulting naturally from the birth process were more serious than by rough
examination, that midwives who received their training in the Second Division
examined their patients in much the same manner but without the same
ill-effects, and that even after reducing the medical students’ number and
their examinations of the women, the mortality didn’t fall down.
Various psychological explanations were
also examined. Dr. Semmelweis managed the priest’s direct and peaceful approach
of a dying woman without making other patients afraid in the First Division.
The same situation existed in the Second Division. But the death rate remained
the same. He also tried on the hypothesis that the death rate was low in the
Second Division because the women were delivered lying on their sides, unlike
the women who were delivered on their backs in the First Division. Again the
death rate remained the same.
In 1847, accidentally, Dr. Semmelweis’
colleague Kolletschka received a small wound in the finger from the scalpel
while performing autopsy. After sometime, he developed the symptoms of the
childbed fever and died painfully. Then, Dr. Semmelweis concluded that an
unknown infectious ‘cadavaric matter’ that he, his colleagues, and the medical
students carried was behind the death of the women. Then, he ordered all his
medical students to wash their hands in a solution of chlorinated lime before
making examination. The mortality from childbed fever promptly began to
decrease. The mortality in the Second Division was lower because the women were
attended by the midwives whose training did not include anatomical instruction
by dissection of vadavars. The hypothesis was further proved by the fact that
mortality among the women who reached hospital after the birth was lower because
they were rarely examined after admission.
Semmelweis broadened his hypothesis
through further clinical experiences. On one occasion, he and his associates
first examined a woman in labour who was suffering from festering cervical
cancer. Then, they checked other twelve women without disinfecting the hands.
Eleven of them died of puerperal fever. Semmelweis concluded that childbed
fever can be caused not only by cadaveric material but also by ‘putrid matter
derived from living organisms’.
II.
Interpretation
This essay might be trying to tell us
that scientific inquiry is a long and time-consuming process with forming
hypotheses, testing them, and making conclusion. It’s a step by step process
through which result is achieved with critical thinking and careful
observation.
III.
Critical Thinking
This essay has described about the way
of thinking scientifically. Dr. Semmelweis and his colleagues found the cause
behind the death of the women after labour with a lot of hard work and
patience. They observed many cases and checked every hypothesis before coming
to the conclusion. I appreciate their efforts, but I am displeased to know at
last that he further tried to broaden his hypothesis by playing with the life
of his patients. The essay mentions that, on one occasion, Dr. Semmelweis and
his associates first checked a woman in labour who was suffering from festering
cervical cancer, and then checked other twelve women without disinfecting their
hands. As a result, eleven of them died with puerperal fever.
IV.
Assimilation
After reading the essay, I have known
how much effort a scientist puts on his research work before developing a
theory. I am more convinced to the truthfulness and credibility of scientific
process. I have also started to check a new fact from all sides and all angles
possible before accepting them.
No comments:
Post a Comment