The cited report on the new contention about the cause of Darwin's persistent illness notes that "Researchers attributed these and other symptoms to everything from heart disease, arsenic poisoning, a pigeon allergy, and a severe reaction to the death of his mother."
The latter notion needs clarification. It was proposed by none other than John Bowlby, most notably in his superb biography *Charles Darwin: A New Life* (1990). In his Preface, Bowlby writes that he had long before broached the suggestion, at the time he was working on his research on childhood bereavement, and it was this that provoked his interest in Darwin's personality and eventually led to his writing the biography. However, for me Bowlby's specific interest (I almost wrote obsession) mars an otherwise excellent book. It reflects the dangers highlighted by Popper's warning about finding "confirmations" for a theory rather than testing it. In his book Bowlby repeatedly reports a particularly bad episode of illness, followed by an 'explanation' for its occurrence at that particular time in terms of some concurrent external event in Darwin's life, frequently tying it to the death of Darwin's mother when he was eight years old. I have no doubt that disturbing or anxiety-inducing events can exacerbate an existing illness, but Bowlby's procedure was effectively self-fulfilling, because he could virtually always find *something* going on in Darwin's world that would fit the bill. It would have been better if he had tested his thesis before writing the book. My suggestion would have been for him to have employed two knowledgeable people to independently list the dates of the occurrence of severe bouts of illness, and of events in Darwin's life that might well have caused him an unusual amount of distress or anxiety. Then he should have compared these two lists and analysed them statistically (I'll leave it to statisticians to explain how that might best be done!) to see how closely the bouts and events were correlated. And, more specifically if he wanted to test his own notion, he could have used only those disturbing life events that could conceivably have a connection with "separation anxiety". That said, while it lacks the socio-scientific detail of other recent (and lengthier) biographies, Bowlby's book captures the life and personality of Darwin better, I think, than any of the others. Allen Esterson Former lecturer, Science Department Southwark College, London [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.human-nature.com/esterson/index.html http://www.butterfliesandwheels.com/articleprint.php?num=10 http://www.butterfliesandwheels.com/articleprint.php?num=57 http://www.butterfliesandwheels.com/articleprint.php?num=58 http://www.srmhp.org/0202/review-01.html ------------------------------ >Mon, 16 May 2005 09:07:06 -0500 Author: "Stephen Black" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: Darwin's illness Body: On 16 May 2005, Esther Yoder Strahan wrote> On 16 May 2005, Esther Yoder Strahan wrote: > > > I've been too busy to read TIPS postings for some time, so forgive me if > > this has already been discussed recently. I know there are medical > > historians who contend that Darwin was a victim of Chagas' disease, > > contracted from the "assassin bug" which Darwin wrote about having seen in > > S. America... In fact, as I recall, there are even some who are hoping to > > exhume his body in order to test this hypothesis, but last I heard they > > weren't having any success obtaining permission. > > The research originally posted by Allen Esterson which proposed > lactose intolerance ( Campbell & Matthews, 2005) considered the > Chargas' disease hypothesis, and called it "the most convincing". But > they rejected it in favour of their new lactose intolerance > hypothesis because "there is no record of Darwin on the Beagle having > the expected initial fever and other early symptoms of Chagas' > disease. Nor does the full list of Darwin's symptoms match those of > Chagas' disease." Campbell and Matthews instead claim an exact match > between Darwin's symptoms and those of lactose intolerance. However, > they do suggest the condition may have been worsened by a gut > infection such as Chagas' disease. > > Unless, of course, Darwin's illness was caused by intelligent design. > > Stephen > > Campbell, A., & Matthews, S. (2005). Darwin's illness revealed. > Postgraduate Medicine Journal, 81, 248-251 > ___________________________________________________ > Stephen L. Black, Ph.D. tel: (819) 822-9600 ext 2470 > Department of Psychology fax: (819) 822-9661 > Bishop's University e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Lennoxville, QC J1M 1Z7 > Canada > > Dept web page at http://www.ubishops.ca/ccc/div/soc/psy > TIPS discussion list for psychology teachers at > http://faculty.frostburg.edu/psyc/southerly/tips/index.htm > _______________________________________________ --- You are currently subscribed to tips as: [email protected] To unsubscribe send a blank email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
