Medical Writers

Hippocrates and the corpus: Ionian
    Hippocrates a rough contemporary with Socrates
most treatises of the corpus written bet . 430-330
-some to specialists, some to laymen
-work of a large number of writers, different and sometimes opposed schools;
    they are all anonymous

schools at Cos and Cnidus
-no medical licences
-doctors treated for a fee
-some public physician,
    often hired on an annual contract
    doctors often itinerant:
        so Airs, Waters, Places
        must be familiar with various locales and
        their medical impact
-with strangers, prognosis was a powerful means of persuasion

rational medicine
disease not of divine origin
    cf. Cyclops: sickness comes from Zeus
    Odysseus and the chants over the wound
importance of detailed and methodical observation: historia
    examination of symptoms: stool, urine, temperature, skin     color, etc.
-daily records of the progress of disease:
    clinical histories
    minimum of interpretation
    little mention of treatment

The Problem

-means of treatment limited:
    surgery, cautery, blood-letting, purgative drugs, and control of regimen
-doctors are insecure about their status as technicians
    repeatedly draw the distinction between lay and expert
with the extent of expert knowledge fairly small, the difference bt layman and expert was slight.  
    Medical education was often part of general education.  
    There were educated layman who knew as much as doctors
    some of the treatises are addressed to educated laymen

The Solution

-battle between the rationalists and the empiricists
    the axiomatistic vs. the historicists
    the philosopher and the doctor
    the problem of explicating causes
    the Aristotelian fact and reason
-anti-Eleatic: importance of observation against theory

BUT: even the empiricists used theory
there is no one dominant medical theory about diseases:
    that all diseases had basically one cause
    that they are as many causes as diseases
    that they are as many causes as different manifestations in different people
-winds and seasons cause diseases
-balance of opposites,
    either Empedoclean elements,
    others like astrigent, bitter, sweet. etc.
    or the humors balance of humors; development of four humor theory to Galen
        already present in the Nature of Man
-common method of treatment is by opposites (allopathic):
    diseases of starvation by eating
    of overeating by starvation
    of indolence by work
    of overexertion by rest
-some theories, such as that in Nature of Man, are very systematic and theoretical: lining up the humors with the season and the elements

On Ancient Medicine (Tradition in Medicine)

on the side of the empiricists
general attack on the hypothetical method, not just in medicine
    hypothesis: theoretical entity
            often unobserved
            cf. Democritus' atoms
assuming a postulate, e.g. heat, cold, moisture, dryness

-medicine doesn't need a postulate,
    only in studies where there are insoluble mysteries,
    e.g. things in the sky (i.e. cosmology)
    everyone needs a postulate
        e.g. the whirl, the apeiron, etc.
    with a postulate you can do anything, prove anything
        it is the realm of the unverified imagination
        anyone can make up a story
        so no one's story will be any better than anyone else
    for postulates there is no proof, no verification
    but in medicine there are better and worse practitioners
-difference from modern scientific method:
    invent hypothesis
    deduce conclusions from it
    look for verification of these conclusions
        e.g. dark matter
-so we do have an important place for hypotheses
    which On Ancient Medicine denies
    because of lack of practical bent in Greek science

Medicine is effective without postulates:
    medicine has its own method
    discoveries have been made and will be made by it
in discussing medicine we must use ordinary language
    postulates involve dialectical language which is obscure    
discoveries must use past experience

obvious proof that and how progress has been made:
    the regimen of the healthy does not profit the sick
    this has been the impetus of medicine
-now embarks on a history of medicine:
    a sort of anthropological treatise:
    the discovery of new kinds of food:
        elimination of the raw and strong elements in our diet
        discovery of bread through experimentation

admission that the art is imperfect
    the art is inexact
    but following postulates won't help
there are many variables in the regimen of the sick with varying effects:
    the doctor treat not man, but a man
    one can best hope for small errors
    can't expect perfect accuracy
    mistakes occur in delicate cases where the margin for error is slight; this is where especial skill is required
-the causes the author attributes to various ailments are commonsensical, hardly theoretical
    but also as a result are prey to false analogy
    so the cause of indigestion: not letting the previous meal digest:
    some people's organ digest much more slowly than others, and need longer rest and quiet: supposition that digestive organs need a rest like the whole body does

specific arguments against the postulates:
    if a change in regimen is required, how will these postulates help?
    the ancient (empirical) style is useful, because it gives practical direction
the author (15) suspects that the new practitioners use the old methods, but just append fancy new names to their potions