Paradigm Prognosis

The premise of Roger French's argument is that "from the Middle Ages onwards, physicians built up their trade into an elaborate professional structure, endowed it with an even more elaborate theory, and contrived to present it with great authority." What this means is that during the Middle Ages, the people practicing medicine developed an elite status of influence that was built on their capability to rationalize and create an overwhelming framework of theoretical knowledge. Rather than being able to directly prove and demonstrate accurate empirical data, the doctors made the patients rely mostly on the fact that they hadn't read and made commentaries on Galen. French presents his argument through a very dense catalog of influential individuals and a history of the scholars and teachers that represent the medical opinions of the Middle Ages. His argument is structured around The Good Story, which represents the degree of persuasion a 'medical doctor' of the medieval times was capable of. The term 'medical doctor' differs exrodinarily from the way it is conceptualized today. Without modern technology, medieval practitioners were trapped in a purgatory of science, both limiting and false in it's application. They were completely reliant on ancient texts of philosophy- Hippocrates, Plato, Aristotle, for their paradigm which in turn became structured heavily on theory. It seemed to be more medical philosophy than medical practice, and it existed at a time when most of the philosophizing had already been done. All these things said, it is appropriate for French to criticize their viewpoint. However, I cannot take his argument as more than an informing historical account. Because of what we have learned in Christian Roots, I have obtained a fair understanding of the time period and am aware of the situation of science and the way it was changing during the Middle Ages. This is why I want to structure my own argument around the nature of the Scientific Paradigm Shift, how it applies to the Middle Ages and some of the reasons for its resistance to detour during these times.
The doctors of the middle ages were somewhat pathetic in their knowledge of reality, which is to be expected by a framework of theory as opposed to one of empiricism. On the scholastic road, too much theory and dialectic discourse can lead you astray from the truths of the actual world, one thing that I feel has been slightly ignored during the Medieval era. Medical theory is appropriate because it uses logic to rationalize a person's physical well being based on the complex understanding the doctor is in possession of - a technique that proved successful at the time. However, when dealing with anatomy, the physicians after Galen were extraordinarily hesitant to perform human dissections, which would have answered a lot of questions but also perhaps it would have conflicted with the accepted curriculum. When they did happen to do human dissections, it was an extremely monitored and specialized occasion for the sake of learning what Galen had stated about the anatomy. Also this hesitation and uncritical attitude would take knowledge away from observable data and into the massive theoretical network set before them by the ancients. It was not until Vesalius, who became one of the most successful physicians of the time, did anyone question Galen as supreme overlord of medical faculties. Vesalius propositioned that perhaps Galen, although being the founder of modern medical practices, was not as accurate an anatomist as he claimed or was seen as. To me, this (along with the works of Copernicus) is the beginning of a paradigm shift marking the Renaissance, and ultimately leading to our concept of medicine today. What drives modern medicine is not so much a network of theories but delicate instruments that enable us to have a strong and reliable source of information. In other words, we can now see exactly what is happening within the body and prescribe a medicine that we know will have a desired effect. Scholars such as the rumored Herophilus and Erasistratus and later with Vesalius, realized our need to understand what was going on inside of the body, not just the obvious, physically observable ailments or what Galen had said about it. And this means dissection baby, not of beasts, but of human beings.
The Empiricists would seem to have a more accurate alternative to medical theory but they were also lacking instrumentation. In the Hippocratic Oath, it is says, "I will not use the knife, not even on sufferers from stone, but will withdraw in favor of such men as are engaged in this work." Considering that Hippocrates was an undisputed authority on medicine and that defiling a human body raises a multitude of religious and superstitious conflicts, this would lead the Empiricists farther away from what would eventually dignify them as holding the leading attitude of science. Since Rationalists such as Galen had paved the way for a medical lifestyle that relied heavily on being able to logically maneuver your way into the medical elite using massive intellect, deception and trickery even, the Empiricists were left in the dust not being able to move past what they immediately observed. Also the road that had been paved by Galen, became such a road that was impossible detour from. People just continued their commentaries on other people's work and promoted a hazardous paradigm.
The works of Hippocrates built barricades around the road on which the history of medicine continued. Before the Hippocratic Oath, there was no stability within the medical community. Anybody could run around posing a a doctor and administering remedies for ailments. In a lot of ways, the post-Hippocratic community did not change save the demand for scholarly knowledge. People were still running around posing as doctors, but Hippocrates and Galen made it so that in order to do so you had to be a selective member. This would later be structured and even more isolated with the introduction of the University and medical degrees. Now the demand for scholastic authority increased. Hippocrates changed the entire perspective of medical science by publicly acknowledging his doctrine as the only medical truth to trust. This led to the future monopolization of the medical community. Medical Theorists were becoming successful, which inspired people to pursue it. The successful would either practice or teach and what they taught was how to practice and how to practice involved mastery of previous works of Galen which were often accompanied by the standing theory. Coupled with this philosophical insight would be the 'tricks of the trade', better ways of telling The Good Story. In order to become successful at an art that had no direct proof, one had to convince the public that what they were saying was true. Perhaps it was not their fault, however. Considering the fact that most doctors felt an obligation to the poor as well as the rich persuades me to view these doctors as having good intentions. But, obviously they couldn't have been completely altruistic, since when they practiced on the poor for free, it gave them a boost in their reputation which was everything.
The doctors of the medieval times were missing some key ingredients to the medical soup which would add to their need for theory. Among many others was knowledge of bacteria. Without this, there was no sanitation. If the Plague was not evidence enough of there misled medical discourse than nothing would be. Two things needed two happen to awaken the medical scholars and bring light to the Dark Ages. One of them is a direct attack on their profession, which indeed happened, killing one-third of their population. The other is a new idea. The medical paradigm was stuck in a rut more or less, biding their time in the waiting room for the microscope to be invented.
In Christian Roots, we have joined the wait and we have all just been convinced of The Good Story. As the scholars of the medieval times had structured their evidence and framework of practice around ancient philosophers and used their methods of discourse (such as logic), so too had we been brought along this historical trail. We have been sucked into the time period and learned to accept certain medical remedies and astrological inferences as having value despite our empirical knowledge. This mirrors the attitude the medical community had during the medieval times.
What we have seen from all this brings me to one conclusion: Things must reach a point of crises or turmoil before they can change or become different. This is apparent within the Medieval medical community. The elite medical doctors had found a niche within the European society. They were financially and intellectual stable where they were. French extracts an opinion that contradicts our acceptance of these doctrines and, although fairly cryptic, provides us with an insightful historical perspective. Personally I think French approaches this subject with a theory of his own, encrypts it on purpose, and rationalizes it with dense logic and handpicked history. This method of analysis is suspiciously similar to the Rationalist method he is arguing against. This seems to be a satirical attack on the Rationalists by sort of beating them at their own game, which ultimately, it seems, is the only game. Despite our current empirical abilities, the majority of Science is and always will be theoretically based. As our instruments become increasingly more delicate, more worlds are opened up, deeper levels that require deeper theories. It is ironic that French criticizes the medical theories of the Medieval times, because in a sense he is criticizing the nature of the paradigm, however it is a good target because of the extremity of time it took to disband ancient methods for more contemporary ones.