Institute for Philosophy II, Ruhr University Bochum, Bochum, Germany.
Philosophy and Ethics Group, TU Eindhoven, Eindhoven, The Netherlands.
Hist Philos Life Sci. 2021 Nov 4;43(4):113. doi: 10.1007/s40656-021-00466-8.
The history of the research on peptic ulcer disease (PUD) is characterized by a premature abandonment of the bacterial hypothesis, which subsequently had its comeback, leading to the discovery of Helicobacter pylori-the major cause of the disease. In this paper we examine the received view on this case, according to which the primary reason for the abandonment of the bacterial hypothesis in the mid-twentieth century was a large-scale study by a prominent gastroenterologist Palmer, which suggested no bacteria could be found in the human stomach. To this end, we employ the method of digital textual analysis and study the literature on the etiology of PUD published in the decade prior to Palmer's article. Our findings suggest that the bacterial hypothesis had already been abandoned before the publication of Palmer's paper, which challenges the widely held view that his study played a crucial role in the development of this episode. In view of this result, we argue that the PUD case does not illustrate harmful effects of a high degree of information flow, as it has frequently been claimed in the literature on network epistemology. Moreover, we argue that alternative examples of harmful effects of a high degree of information flow may be hard to find in the history of science.
消化性溃疡病(PUD)的研究历史以过早放弃细菌假说为特征,随后该假说卷土重来,导致了幽门螺杆菌的发现——这种疾病的主要病因。在本文中,我们根据一种主流观点来检验这一案例,即二十世纪中叶放弃细菌假说的主要原因是一位著名的胃肠病学家 Palmer 进行的一项大规模研究,该研究表明人类的胃中不存在细菌。为此,我们采用数字文本分析的方法,研究了在 Palmer 发表论文之前的十年中有关 PUD 病因的文献。我们的研究结果表明,在 Palmer 论文发表之前,细菌假说已经被放弃,这挑战了广泛持有的观点,即他的研究在这一事件的发展中发挥了关键作用。鉴于这一结果,我们认为,正如网络认识论文献中经常声称的那样,PUD 案例并没有说明高度信息流的有害影响。此外,我们还认为,在科学史中可能很难找到其他高度信息流的有害影响的例子。