(via Doctoring the Novel: Medicine and Quackery from Shelley to Doyle - Ohio University Press & Swallow Press)
Description:

If nineteenth-century Britain witnessed the rise of medical  professionalism, it also witnessed rampant quackery. It is tempting to  categorize historical practices as either orthodox or quack, but what  did these terms really signify in medical and public circles at the  time? How did they develop and evolve? What do they tell us about actual  medical practices? Doctoring the Novel explores the ways in which language  constructs and stabilizes these slippery terms by examining medical  quackery and orthodoxy in works such as Mary Shelley’s Frankenstein, Charles Dickens’s Bleak House and Little Dorrit, Charlotte Brontë’s Villette, Wilkie Collins’s Armadale, and Arthur Conan Doyle’s Stark Munro Letters.  Contextualized in both medical and popular publishing, literary  analysis reveals that even supposedly medico-scientific concepts such as  orthodoxy and quackery evolve not in elite laboratories and bourgeois  medical societies but in the rough-and-tumble of the public sphere, a  view that acknowledges the considerable, and often underrated, influence  of language on medical practices.

About the author:


Trained in Victorian studies and pharmacy, Sylvia A. Pamboukian is an associate professor in the department of English at Robert Morris  University. She has published on topics as diverse as Victorian x-rays,  Rudyard Kipling’s supernatural stories, and taboo in the Harry Potter  series.

(via Doctoring the Novel: Medicine and Quackery from Shelley to Doyle - Ohio University Press & Swallow Press)

Description:

If nineteenth-century Britain witnessed the rise of medical professionalism, it also witnessed rampant quackery. It is tempting to categorize historical practices as either orthodox or quack, but what did these terms really signify in medical and public circles at the time? How did they develop and evolve? What do they tell us about actual medical practices?

Doctoring the Novel explores the ways in which language constructs and stabilizes these slippery terms by examining medical quackery and orthodoxy in works such as Mary Shelley’s Frankenstein, Charles Dickens’s Bleak House and Little Dorrit, Charlotte Brontë’s Villette, Wilkie Collins’s Armadale, and Arthur Conan Doyle’s Stark Munro Letters. Contextualized in both medical and popular publishing, literary analysis reveals that even supposedly medico-scientific concepts such as orthodoxy and quackery evolve not in elite laboratories and bourgeois medical societies but in the rough-and-tumble of the public sphere, a view that acknowledges the considerable, and often underrated, influence of language on medical practices.

About the author:

Trained in Victorian studies and pharmacy, Sylvia A. Pamboukian is an associate professor in the department of English at Robert Morris University. She has published on topics as diverse as Victorian x-rays, Rudyard Kipling’s supernatural stories, and taboo in the Harry Potter series.

(via BiblioVault - Death, Dissection and the Destitute)
In the early nineteenth century, body snatching was rife because the only corpses available for medical study were those of hanged murderers. With the Anatomy Act of 1832, however, the bodies of those who died destitute in workhouses were appropriated for dissection. At a time when such a procedure was regarded with fear and revulsion, the Anatomy Act effectively rendered dissection a punishment for poverty. Providing both historical and contemporary insights, Death, Dissection, and the Destitute opens rich new prospects in history and history of science. The new afterword draws important parallels between social and medical history and contemporary concerns regarding organs for transplant and human tissue for research.
For those interested in the history of science and medicine, and the social constructions of the punishments for “being poor”.

(via BiblioVault - Death, Dissection and the Destitute)

In the early nineteenth century, body snatching was rife because the only corpses available for medical study were those of hanged murderers. With the Anatomy Act of 1832, however, the bodies of those who died destitute in workhouses were appropriated for dissection. At a time when such a procedure was regarded with fear and revulsion, the Anatomy Act effectively rendered dissection a punishment for poverty. Providing both historical and contemporary insights, Death, Dissection, and the Destitute opens rich new prospects in history and history of science. The new afterword draws important parallels between social and medical history and contemporary concerns regarding organs for transplant and human tissue for research.

For those interested in the history of science and medicine, and the social constructions of the punishments for “being poor”.

Although we take it for granted today, the concept of “energy” transformed nineteenth-century physics. In The Science of Energy, Crosbie Smith shows how a North British group of scientists and engineers, including James Joule, James Clerk Maxwell, William and James Thomson, Fleeming Jenkin, and P. G. Tait, developed energy physics to solve practical problems encountered by Scottish shipbuilders and marine engineers; to counter biblical revivalism and evolutionary materialism; and to rapidly enhance their own scientific credibility.

Replacing the language and concepts of classical mechanics with terms such as “actual” and “potential” energy, the North British group conducted their revolution in physics so astutely and vigorously that the concept of “energy”—a valuable commodity in the early days of industrialization—became their intellectual property. Smith skillfully places this revolution in its scientific and cultural context, exploring the actual creation of scientific knowledge during one of the most significant episodes in the history of physics.

Crosbie Smith is reader in History and Cultural Studies of Science and director of the Centre for History and Cultural Studies of Science at Rutherford College, University of Kent at Canterbury. He is coauthor of Energy and Empire: A Biographical Study of Lord Kelvin and coeditor of Making Space for Science: Territorial Themes in the Shaping of Knowledge.

Apparently, the University of Chicago Press is trying to kill us with history of science from the Victorian era…guess I already know what this year’s bonus is going toward.

Table of Contents:

1. Darwin among the Novelists
2. Natural Theology: Whewell and Darwin
3. Mansfield Park: Observation Rewarded
4. Darwin’s Revolution: From Natural Theology to Natural Selection
5. Dickens and Darwin
6. Little Dorrit and Three Kinds of Science
7. The Darwinian World of Anthony Trollope
8. The Perils of Observation
9. From Scott to Darwin to Conrad: Revolution Not Evolution
Notes
Index

findingsherlock-deactivated2012

The idea of God was not a lie but a device of the unconscious which needed to be decoded by psychology. A personal god was nothing more than an exalted father-figure: desire for such a deity sprang from infantile yearnings for a powerful, protective father, for justice and fairness and for life to go on forever. God is simply a projection of these desires, feared and worshipped by human beings out of an abiding sense of helplessness. Religion belonged to the infancy of the human race; it had been a necessary stage in the transition from childhood to maturity. It had promoted ethical values which were essential to society. Now that humanity had come of age, however, it should be left behind.

findingsherlock:

thinginajar:

- Sigmund Freud

FS says: Freud said basically the same thing about masturbation. 

I think it’s dangerous to quote Freud out of context like this, given the historical significance of social Darwinism. One of the things social Darwinist rarely admit to is that the movement started as a way to define white Western society as the pinnacle of creation and to bestialize the “lesser” civilizations and races, labeling everything primitive that wasn’t white, secular and Western.

This logic then was followed to its inevitable and erroneous conclusion with the anti-semitism that continued (this time “justified by science!”) and anti-everything not German of the Third Reich.  

Be careful what you say about religion. Its been said before and really aggressively and often coupled with violence and murder.

I’m not religious myself, but its inappropriate to bring ideas of social evolution like Freud’s into the discussion not only because it’s been proven so wrong as far as how civilization develops, but also been used for so many horrible things.

Try being atheist without needing to demonize or dehumanize or make religious people into lesser beings. It’s nicer, easier and a better and more moral way to express your beliefs. 

Cheers!

Reminder: when you dehumanize, degrade, and ridicule those you are opposed to, you are doing exactly the same things that you protest them doing to you.

(via BiblioVault - Victorian Science in Context)
Victorian Science in Context captures the essence of this fascination, charting the many ways in which science influenced and was influenced by the larger Victorian culture. Contributions from leading scholars in history, literature, and the history of science explore questions such as: What did science mean to the Victorians? For whom was Victorian science written? What ideological messages did it convey? The contributors show how practical concerns interacted with contextual issues to mold Victorian science—which in turn shaped much of the relationship between modern science and culture.
Bernard Lightman is professor of humanities at York University, Toronto, editor of the journal Isis, editor of Victorian Science in Context, and coeditor of Science in the Marketplace, all published by the University of Chicago Press.
 I swear I’m not entirely trying to tempt FS…

(via BiblioVault - Victorian Science in Context)

Victorian Science in Context captures the essence of this fascination, charting the many ways in which science influenced and was influenced by the larger Victorian culture. Contributions from leading scholars in history, literature, and the history of science explore questions such as: What did science mean to the Victorians? For whom was Victorian science written? What ideological messages did it convey? The contributors show how practical concerns interacted with contextual issues to mold Victorian science—which in turn shaped much of the relationship between modern science and culture.
Bernard Lightman is professor of humanities at York University, Toronto, editor of the journal Isis, editor of Victorian Science in Context, and coeditor of Science in the Marketplace, all published by the University of Chicago Press.

 I swear I’m not entirely trying to tempt FS…