3 Responses to Not moribund at all! An historian of medicine’s response to Richard Horton

  1. Pingback: Around the Web Digest: Week of August 3 | Savage Minds

  2. Since Dr. Horton is — if I may put it this way — the subject of medical history, his comments remind me of the anthropologist confronted with objections by the ‘native': those objections are not the same as an analysis, but are an additional part of the data the anthropologist needs to analyze. We do not expect lay speakers of a language to agree with, or even understand, the linguist’s complex analysis of their language. Why would be expect the subjects of history to have credibility in comments on that history? Again, Dr. Horton could offer data for medical historians in the form of his own recollections, papers, memoirs, etc., but since he is not a historian his judgments about the adequacy of medical history are not the same as a historian’s judgments of medical history. (Full disclosure: I am a cardiologist who would never presume to think that I could judge another discipline, and would never presume to set its agenda.)

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>