Hacker News new | ask | show | jobs
by pjreddie 4430 days ago
Doctors rejected hand washing for a long time because there was no theory behind why it would improve patient care, even when there was overwhelming evidence showing it decreased mortality rates.

Do you discount all evidence that doesn't fit into your world view? Maybe theory hasn't caught up with evidence yet.
2 comments
kansface 4430 days ago
The answer of course is no. The degree to which we think its shit is related to how much we know about related fields and the size of the effect among others. The prior isn't binary.

For the topic at hand, ESP would most likely invalidate quite a bit of physics no one is questioning for other reasons and there is no proposed theory to explain the effects. Our confidence in the studies is rightfully close to zero.

link
jarrett 4430 days ago
> Doctors rejected hand washing for a long time because there was no theory behind why it would improve patient care

The germ theory of disease and experiments supporting the theory predate medical sanitation. (Pasteur's work did come after, but he wasn't the first.) The medical community's initial rejection of handwashing was not due to a scientifically motivated demand for a sound theory. Rather, it was due in large part to doctors' unwillingness to believe that they were the ones spreading disease from patient to patient. Additionally, the medical community at the time did not embrace the scientific method to the extent that it does today. Had it, handwashing would have been evaluated in a controlled study and proven effective.

link
pjreddie 4429 days ago
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ignaz_Semmelweis

> Despite various publications of results where hand-washing reduced mortality to below 1%, Semmelweis's observations conflicted with the established scientific and medical opinions of the time and his ideas were rejected by the medical community. Some doctors were offended at the suggestion that they should wash their hands and Semmelweis could offer no acceptable scientific explanation for his findings.

He published a lot on the subject and was rejected because it didn't fit in with how doctors saw the world and he had no theory to back up his findings. It wasn't until Pasteur that germ theory gained any widespread acceptance so it's pretty irrelevant that other people thought of it first.

Plenty of things are evaluated in controlled studies and still rejected today. For example, the article that you presumably just read discusses one such thing.

link