Scientists’ Methods Accounts: S. Weir Mitchell’s Research on the Venom of Poisonous Snakes

Chapter
Part of the Boston Studies in the Philosophy of Science book series (BSPS, volume 263)

Abstract

In this essay I pursue two related goals. I draw attention to a key yet neglected element of scientific writing about experiments: methods accounts. By “methods accounts” I mean scientists’ accounts of the rules one should apply in experimental practice, the problems one may encounter in doing so, and the extent to which the investigators believed they had followed these rules. I then utilize the study of methods accounts to consider if and how historical and philosophical analyses might be brought together to elucidate past scientific episodes. At first glance, scientists’ conceptions of good experimental methods and their development seem to be an important focal point for joint philosophical and historical analysis and thus a theme that fits squarely into the overall scope of the volume. I contend, however, that the question of how two scholarly fields, the history and the philosophy of science, should be combined, is ill conceived because it is based on a misconception of the practice of philosophical analysis.

Keywords

Snake Venom Method Account Independent Confirmation Early Modern Period Methodological Reflection 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

References

  1. Achinstein, P., ed. 2004. Science Rules. A Historical Introduction to Scientific Methods. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press.Google Scholar
  2. Baldwin, M. 1995. “The Snakestone Experiments: An Early Modern Medical Debate”. Isis 86: 394–418.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Beiser, F. 2007. “Historicism”. In Oxford Handbook to Continental Philosophy, edited by B. Leiter and M. Rosen, 155–79. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bogen, J. 2001. “‘Two as Good as a Hundred’: Poorly Replicated Evidence in Some Nineteenth-Century Neuroscientific Research”. Studies in History and Philosophy of Biology and Biomedical Sciences 32: 491–533.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Buchwald, J.Z. 2006. “Discrepant Measurements and Experimental Knowledge in the Early Modern Era”. Archive for the History of the Exact Sciences 60: 565–649.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Burian, R.M. 2002. “Comments on the Precarious Relation Between History of Science and Philosophy of Science”. Perspectives on Science 10: 398–407.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Burr, A.R. 1929. Weir Mitchell – His Life and Letters. New York, NY: Duffield & Co.Google Scholar
  8. Canale, D.J. 2002. “Civil War Medicine from the Perspective of S. Weit Mitchell’s ‘The Case of George Dedlow’”. Journal of the History of the Neurosciences 11: 11–18.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Cervetti, N. 2007. “S. Weir Mitchell and His Snakes: Unraveling the ‘United Web and Woof of Popular and Scientific Beliefs’”. Journal of Medical Humanities 28: 119–33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Findlen, P. 1993. “Controlling the Experiment: Rhetoric, Court Patronage and the Experimental Method of Francesco Redi”. History of Science 31: 35–64.Google Scholar
  11. Findlen, P. 1994. Possessing Nature. Museums, Collecting, and Scientific Culture in Early Modern Italy. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.Google Scholar
  12. Franklin, A. 1986. The Neglect of Experiment. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Franklin, A. 1989. “The Epistemology of Experiment”. In The Uses of Experiment. Studies in the Natural Sciences, edited by D. Gooding et al., 437–60. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  14. Franklin, A. 1990. Experiment Right or Wrong. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  15. Franklin, A. 2010. “Experiment in Physics”. In The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, edited by E.N. Zalta (Spring 2010 Edition): URL = <http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/spr2010/entries/physics-experiment/>.
  16. Franklin, A., and C. Howson. 1988. “It Probably Is a Valid Experimental Result: A Bayesian Approach to the Epistemology of Experiment”. Studies in History and Philosophy of Science 19: 419–27.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Franklin, A., and C. Howson. 1998. “Comment on ‘The Structure of a Scientific Paper’ by Frederick Suppe”. Philosophy of Science 65: 411–16.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Fye, W.B. 1983. “S. Weir Mitchell, Philadelphia’s ‘Lost’ Physiologist”. Bulletin of the History of Medicine 57: 188–202.Google Scholar
  19. Galison, P. 2008. “Ten Problems in History and Philosophy of Science”. Isis 99: 111–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Goetz, C. 1997. “Jean Martin Charcot and Silas Weir Mitchell”. Neurology 48: 1128–132.Google Scholar
  21. Hacking, I. 1981. “Do We See Through a Microscope?” Pacific Philosophical Quarterly 63: 305–22.Google Scholar
  22. Hammond, W.A., and Mitchell, S.W. 1860. On the Physical and Chemical Characterization of Corroval and Vao, Two Recently Discovered Varieties of Woorara, and on a New Alkaloid Constituting their Active Principle. Proceedings of the Academy of Natural Sciences of Philadelphia 12: 4–9.Google Scholar
  23. Holmes, F.L. 1991. “Argument and Narrative in Scientific Writing”. In The Literary Structure of Scientific Argument: Historical Studies, edited by P. Dear, 164–81. Philadelphia, PA: University of Pennsylvania Press.Google Scholar
  24. Knoefel, P.K. 1988. Francesco Redi on Vipers. Leiden: Brill.Google Scholar
  25. Laudan, L. 1989. “Thoughts on HPS: 20 Years Later”. Studies in History and Philosophy of Science 20: 9–13.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Lesch, J.E. 1984. Science and Medicine in France. The Emergence of Experimental Physiology, 1790–1855. Cambridge: Cambridge University press.Google Scholar
  27. Logan, C.A. 2002. “Before There were Standards: The Role of Test Animals in the Production of Empirical Generality in Physiology”. Jounal of the History of Biology 35: 329–63.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Mitchell, S.W. 1860. Researches on the Venom of the Rattlesnake: With an Investigation of the Anatomy and Physiology of the Organs Concerned. Philadelphia, PA: Smithsonian Institution.Google Scholar
  29. Mitchell, S.W. 1861. On the Treatment of Rattlesnake Bites, with Experimental Criticisms upon the Various Remedies Now in Use. Philadelphia, PA: Lippincott & Co.Google Scholar
  30. Mitchell, S.W. and W.A. Hammond 1859. An Experimental Examination of the Physiological Effect of Sassy-Bark, the Ordeal Poison of the Western Coast of Africa. Proceedings of the Academy of Natural Sciences of Philadelphia 11:13–16.Google Scholar
  31. Mitchell, S.W. and E.T. Reichert 1886. Researches Upon the Venoms of Poisonous Serpents. Washington, DC: Smithsonian Institution.Google Scholar
  32. Otis, L. 1999. Membranes: Metaphors of Invasion in Nineteenth-Century Literature, Science and Politics. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press.Google Scholar
  33. Schickore, J. 2010. Trying Again and Again: Multiple Repetitions in Early Modern Reports of Experiments on Snake Bites. Early Science and Medicine 15.Google Scholar
  34. Schickore, J. forthcoming-a. More Thoughts on HPS: Another 20 Years Later. Perspectives on Science.Google Scholar
  35. Schickore, J. forthcoming-b. The Significance of Re-Doing Experiments: A Contribution to Historically Informed Methodology. Erkenntnis.Google Scholar
  36. Schnädelbach, H. 1987. ‘Etwas Verstehen heisst Verstehen, wie es geworden ist’ – Variationen über eine hermeneutische Maxime. Vernunft und Geschichte. Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp.Google Scholar
  37. Shortt, S.E.D. 1983. “Physicians, Science, and Status: Issues in the Professionalization of Anglo-American Medicine in the Nineteenth Century”. Medical History 27: 51–68.Google Scholar
  38. Tribby, J. 1991. “Cooking (with) Clio and Cleo: Eloquence and Experiment in Seventeenth-Century Florence”. Journal of the History of Ideas 52: 417–39.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Indiana UniversityBloomingtonUSA

Personalised recommendations