REALL News - Vol 07 No 04 - 1999

Magazine Overview

This document is the fourth and concluding part of an article titled "Dr. Kreider Speaks Out" by Randy Alley, published in The REALL News, Volume 7, Issue 4, in April 1999. The article examines the views of Dr. Michael Zimmerman Kreider, a physician from the late 19th century, on the pseudosciences of phrenology and mesmerism.

Dr. Kreider's Stance on Pseudoscience

The author, Randy Alley, describes Dr. Kreider as a harsh judge of pseudosciences, who supported his positions with the scientific facts available in his time. Kreider did not hesitate to ridicule practices like phrenology and mesmerism and had no kind words for the charlatans who profited from them. However, Kreider did express sympathy for the people who followed these practices, with the ultimate goal of preventing them from being taken advantage of by quacks.

The article acknowledges that Kreider's views were consistent with the period in which he lived, a time when the distinction between science and pseudoscience was often obscure. Many people, including scientists and physicians, were searching for magical answers to unlock the universe's secrets, and phrenology and mesmerism were popular beliefs.

Kreider, however, was adept at identifying fraud. He gave each pseudoscience the attention it merited and concluded that phrenology and mesmerism were fraudulent. His critique of mesmerism, or animal magnetism, was particularly swift. He noted that the claims were dismissed upon the circulation of Thomas Jefferson's report on the first commission's findings regarding mesmerism's introduction in America. The scientific community found no evidence to support animal magnetism, deeming it more imagination than fact. Published opinions of the time treated mesmerists with scorn and ridicule, a sentiment Kreider shared.

Kreider's approach to mesmerism involved ridiculing the experiences of its proponents and plainly stating that two French commissions had reviewed animal magnetism and found it to be totally without merit. This evidence was sufficient for Kreider to dismiss the practice.

Critique of Phrenology

Dealing with phrenology required a more thorough approach from Kreider. Phrenology had the advantage of being observable, as people could see the protuberances on their heads being measured. Proponents claimed different organs controlled different emotions, similar to how eyes control sight. Phrenologists also offered exercises, which allowed them to shift blame to the patient if results were not achieved, rather than admitting the absence of the alleged organs.

Kreider employed similar evidence against phrenology as other physicians of his era. He recognized that phrenology was harder to disprove because the general public lacked understanding of anatomy and the workings of the human brain. To counter this, Kreider presented comprehensive medical evidence demonstrating that the brain is not composed of separate organs controlling distinct personality functions. He supported his arguments by citing top physiologists of the time and detailing their experiments, refuting the validity of phrenology as a scientific method.

Philosophical Arguments and Context

Kreider's philosophical arguments, while harder to explain, were supported by common ideas of his peers. While it was accepted that animals had brains, it was not argued that these brains were similar to humans. Animals followed predictable patterns of instinct (e.g., migration, nesting), whereas humans did not. Humans, unlike animals, were believed to possess self-control and the ability to make decisions based on their own desires and will.

Kreider was a product of his time, and his views on phrenology and mesmerism were consistent with those of his contemporaries. His arguments were rational and logical within that context. He was unwavering in his conviction that frauds and charlatans had no place in science, a belief he demonstrated in his manuscript and actions as a member of the Ohio State Medical Society.

Limitations and Legacy

Michael Zimmerman Kreider, like many of his peers, was limited by certain beliefs, including the use of religion as fact, and the scientific understanding of his lifetime. Nevertheless, he is characterized as an early skeptic who endeavored to ground his communications in science.

The article is drawn from a part of Randy Alley's Master's Degree thesis in History.

Recurring Themes and Editorial Stance

The recurring theme of this article is skepticism towards pseudoscience and a commitment to scientific rigor. The editorial stance, as presented through the analysis of Dr. Kreider's work, is one of critical examination of popular beliefs, distinguishing between genuine scientific inquiry and fraudulent practices. The publication, The REALL News, appears to champion a rationalist and evidence-based approach to understanding phenomena, particularly those that border on the unverified or pseudoscientific.