Science and Inquiry discussion

This topic is about
The Ghost Map
Book Club 2015
>
June 2015 - Ghost Map
date
newest »



I should say more. The battle between ideas is constant in science. There are so many examples of the old and new schools of thought fighting it out. Are we any better at being open minded when a new concept is introduced? I was unaware of Whitehead and his work. How fortunate that he tried to prove Snow wrong, but was honest in his work and provided the additional evidence to support Snow's belief.
This case reminds me of Ignaz Semmelweis. He was able decrease mortality for childbed fever and yet so many doctors refused to believe they could be at fault for the deaths. Even today, hospital acquired infections is an issue and it has been very hard to train the health care professionals to take the right steps in preventing them. The latter example is a behavioral issue, not a shift in paradigm. But yet there is still the lingering self confidence that 'we' are right and couldn't possibly be at fault.


Well, in some cases, at any rate. I found the description of the newspaper ads & remedies incredibly sad because I see so many of them still promulgated today as pseudo-scientific cures. People are still buying supplements & using aroma therapy. We covered a lot of this when we read Bad Science, but it's just disheartening.
I got the ebook because wanted to go back over his explanation of how cholera mutated. I didn't really care for it because of the way he framed it as a 'desire'. That was OK at first, but later on he said something about a group intelligence that came across as pseudo science. Here's that offending paragraph.
It goes without saying that the bacteria are not in any way conscious of developing this strategy. The strategy evolves on its own, as the overall population balance of V. cholerae changes. In a low-transmission environment, lethal strains die out, and mild ones come to dominate the population. In high-transmission environments, the lethal strains quickly outnumber the mild ones. No single bacterium is aware of the cost-benefit analysis, but thanks to their amazing capacity for adaptation, they’re able to make the analysis as a group, each isolated life and death serving a kind of vote in a distributed microbial assembly. There is no consciousness in the lowly bacterium. But there is a kind of group intelligence nonetheless.
I still don't like framing this as 'a kind of group intelligence'. I think he could have used some statistical analysis to better effect or am I just being cranky?
(I spent much of the time I listened getting eaten by bugs & thorny plum trees. I also found one of my small Blue Spruces covered with bag worms. I hate having to use pesticides, but after 20 minutes of picking them off, there are still a bunch on there, so I don't have much choice. It was a healthy little tree & they're killing it, so I'm kind of grouchy.)


At the halfway point & a bit beyond (I'm on part 5 of 7) it's been pretty boring, often a rehash & bunch of detail on what has already been covered in as much depth as I wanted to know. Far too much repetition as the author goes back to tie in the preacher's observations & the public health commissions. I understand that it is a problem to outline general trends & then go back into the specifics that caused them. Some repetition is inevitable. There are also multiple players, causes, & trends to follow, but he's covering the same ground & facts each time. It's getting very old.
It was interesting the way he points out how the cure for the miasma theory wound up causing more problems based on ignorance, yet ultimately led to Snow being able to gather the necessary statistical data to narrow down the actual cause, still without knowledge of bacteria. That had been discovered, but was ignored by everyone. It also led to being able to solve the problem.


My review is here:
https://www.goodreads.com/review/show...
Please use this thread to post questions, comments, and reviews, at any time.