On The Differences Between The Sciences: Comparing Knowledge(s) of Health and Disease in the 19th Century

Abstract

This paper begins with Max Weber’s proposition that the difference between the ‘sciences’ (defined in the broadest sense) is one of values, context and theoretical orientation rather than subject matter. This proposition arises from Weber’s theories of knowledge and of history, theories which can be usefully applied to the way historians theorise the past and the processes of social change. In this paper I argue that Weber’s insights into the difference between the ‘sciences’, despite being formed nearly a century ago, rest on a theory of knowledge and history of continuing relevance, and which offers a more coherent and compelling form of historiography. The historiography in question concerns the emergence of the biomedical model of health and disease, and of the rise of ‘medicine’ in the course of 19th century Europe and Britain. While Weber’s theoretical framework does not answer the questions posed by present-day scholars about specific historical events, it provides insight into the process through which such histories are ‘constructed’, explains why many of these attempts at understanding history are inadequate, and offers the means to more coherently conceptualise the role of medical knowledge in historical change.