[yesenadam]

Wow, I liked it (although none of the Monty Hall story was new to me) until the part where he was disgustingly dismissive and insulting to Semmelweis. Then I stopped reading. A less sympathetic account can hardly be imagined, I thought it was shameful.

[ghusbands]

It clearly assumes that the reader is aware of the background and simply states that it is "conceivable" that Semmelweis' attitude (whether warranted or not) may have negatively impacted his message. It seems like a sound point; that sort of thing does unfortunately happen.

[yesenadam]

Semmelweis "the medical pioneer whose unyielding adherence to principles of hygiene may have been responsible for the deaths of millions. Sure, he saved lots of people, but it’s conceivable that the practice of routine hand-washing in surgical theatres might have spread farther, and faster, if the man had never been born (and therefore never antagonized so much of the medical establishment with his rigidity and brusqueness, and therefore never put hand-washing in such bad odor)."

I don't think that saying the writer here 'simply states that it is "conceivable" that Semmelweis' attitude (whether warranted or not) may have negatively impacted his message' is a reasonable interpretation of that passage, to say the least. (I also can't see that it "clearly assumes" what you say it does. You probably wouldn't link to the guy's wikipedia page if you assume people know not only who he is but the background too)

What was his 'attitude'? It drove him nuts that no-one would listen?

[ggm]

A professor at a university I worked at, had such antipathy for the computer centre director who had a personal chair for his non-teaching role, that we were under standing instructions to vote against anything he suggested at a departmental meeting. Yet, both had to agree on significant computing spend for the university. Net result? lose-lose outcomes...

[olooney]

It's interesting to draw a parallel between the author's argument that Semmelweis could have achieved more if he had been more respectful and "never antagonized so much of the medical establishment" to similar arguments continuously leveled at Martin Luther King, Jr. and other civil rights leaders. Despite this same argument being dredged up whenever there's a conflict between reform and inertia, history provides few examples of polite, demur, reformers who were careful to never antagonize the establishment.

It's also worth pointing out that the phrase "it's conceivable that" is a fairly cheap rhetorical trick: you can advance any ludicrous argument with no evidence or material support while forcing anyone who disagrees with you to produce proofs that are beyond all reasonable doubt. "It's conceivable that if the Nazis had won WWII, we would have colonies on the Moon by now." "It's conceivable that Yahoo's stock price will increase ten-fold in the next year." "It's conceivable that eating dog shit is the key to human immortality." Sure, it's conceivable but because it's neither plausible nor likely, and because no valid argument can be advanced to support the claim, it's not worth talking about, unless we're writing alternative history fiction. Yet authors often use this or similar phrases to propose arguments that they personally believe but know they cannot defend.

[ajkjk]

Weird that you would stop reading for that, and announce it here. As if there's some virtue in turning away in disgust.

[yesenadam]

Don't be snarky

I'm offering a severe criticism of the writer, and sticking up for Semmelweis. I'm not sure what you're doing, besides tempting me to use the phrase 'virtue signalling' for the first time ever.

[watwut]

And article merely offered criticism of Semmelweis approach. Why is that disgusting? Is that untruth or he did not ended in that asylum? Should these topics be taboo?

There is really lesson there, you can alienate people enough so they end up not listening to reasonable parts of what you are pushing for.

[castlecrasher2]

>"Semmelweis [...] may have been responsible for the deaths of millions"

How does that not strike you as unnecessarily harsh and unwarranted? The statement reeks of viewing history through the modern lens, and the author doubles down on the next sentence suggesting that the scientific community would have somehow opened their eyes if only Semmelweis had either not been born or had been less of an asshole, or something.

[watwut]

"History through modern lens" seems to be a bit out of topic complaint.

The rest of paragraph explains why author thinks he was wrong. It would be interesting to read historical dispute, but your complaint seems to be less about different interpretation of history and more about making criticism of past personalities taboo.