Comparing The Revolutionary Works Of The Presocratics And Babylonians

In order to approach the idea of medicine as a science starting from the revolutionary works of Hippocrates, it is important to understand that the qualities that make a pursuit qualify as a science do not shift considerably from those that we associated with the endeavors of the Presocratics and Babylonians. When considering the works of the Babylonians, their practice of medicine was considered a science mainly due to their use of deduction and reasoning, with religion bridging the gap to explain why ailments occurred as they did. Under the guidance of Hippocratic doctors, ancient Greek medicine followed a similar path with a value on understand how things worked and the application of the knowledge. However, the large difference between

Of the three schools, the Methodists would have to the weakest scientific foundations supporting it, if any at all. While the Empiricism can be thought of as a simplification of medicine, Methodism would then be the simplification of the simplification served with a side of ignorance and well-wishing. In Galen’s work, Three Treatises on the Nature of Science, he describes how the Methodist view can ultimately be summed up in two concerns, costiveness, or constriction, which is countered by relaxation, or flux which is countered by constriction, and in some cases a combination of the two which is then treated based off which affliction is worst (Richard, pg. 10). Simplification aside, the largest disqualifier for Methodist medicine being considered a science is the outright refusal to investigate or understand why things occur the way they do. This is again brought up in Galen’s account of Methodists where they claim that any information aside from the apparent ailment and what remedies can be used to constrict/relax the area, is

Although marred by the Hippocratic beliefs of humors being the key factor in human illness, like the demons and spirits in Babylonia, these were a necessary explanation during their era as they served as a method of creating an idea of a natural cause and effect that could be observed and measured. Furthermore, they actively attempted to expand their knowledge of diseases with their controversial search and belief in the “hidden-causes”. This search led them to the undoubtedly scientific practice of dissection and the newfound knowledge of anatomy (Heinrich, pg. 235), which was continued in practice on animals after human dissection was put out of style. In the section of Galen’s work titled, The Best Doctor is also a Good Philosopher, he claims that the ability to think logically and rationally are vital to understanding how and why the body works and differentiate between diseases, things that both the Empiricists and Methodists reject (P.N. Singer, pg. 33). This is a key part of medicine that is still encouraged to this day, as a doctor must consider all the information they have on their patients, and even if a fever is the only apparent symptom, thinking about lab results, which would be the equivalent to the theoretical “hidden causes” for the Greeks, is the only way to ensure that the ailment is treated