Skip to main content

Main menu

  • HOME
  • ONLINE FIRST
  • CURRENT ISSUE
  • ALL ISSUES
  • AUTHORS & REVIEWERS
  • SUBSCRIBE
  • RESOURCES
    • About BJGP
    • Conference
    • Advertising
    • BJGP Life
    • eLetters
    • Librarian information
    • Alerts
    • Resilience
    • Video
    • Audio
    • COVID-19 Clinical Solutions
  • RCGP
    • BJGP for RCGP members
    • BJGP Open
    • RCGP eLearning
    • InnovAIT Journal
    • Jobs and careers
    • RCGP e-Portfolio

User menu

  • Subscriptions
  • Alerts
  • Log in

Search

  • Advanced search
British Journal of General Practice
  • RCGP
    • BJGP for RCGP members
    • BJGP Open
    • RCGP eLearning
    • InnovAIT Journal
    • Jobs and careers
    • RCGP e-Portfolio
  • Subscriptions
  • Alerts
  • Log in
  • Follow bjgp on Twitter
  • Visit bjgp on Facebook
  • Blog
  • Listen to BJGP podcast
Advertisement
British Journal of General Practice

Advanced Search

  • HOME
  • ONLINE FIRST
  • CURRENT ISSUE
  • ALL ISSUES
  • AUTHORS & REVIEWERS
  • SUBSCRIBE
  • RESOURCES
    • About BJGP
    • Conference
    • Advertising
    • BJGP Life
    • eLetters
    • Librarian information
    • Alerts
    • Resilience
    • Video
    • Audio
    • COVID-19 Clinical Solutions
Out of Hours

Image of man — the ‘scientific’ versus ‘manifest’ images of Wilfrid Sellars

David Misselbrook
British Journal of General Practice 2013; 63 (614): 484. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3399/bjgp13X671696
David Misselbrook
GP, Dean Emeritus of the Royal Society of Medicine, Course Director of the Diploma of the Philosophy of Medicine of the Society of Apothecaries, and Senior Ethics Advisor.
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • Article
  • Info
  • eLetters
  • PDF
Loading

We are exhorted to make our medicine rigorously evidence based and yet robustly patient centred. We find ourselves having to square a circle. Why is it that these two aspects of medicine seem so determined to pull apart? And why is it that the scientific picture of evidence-based medicine always gets to play front of stage?

The US Philosopher Wilfrid Sellars describes two images or pictures of man. The scientific image of man is familiar to medics; it’s all about body tissues, genes, and biochemistry. But what if science is not the only valid way of knowing? Sellars sees the ‘manifest image’ of man as ‘the framework in terms of which, to use an existentialist turn of phrase, man first encountered himself’. The manifest image is connected to personhood and self-awareness, it is how I think of myself every day. Pascal said, ‘Man is but a reed, the most feeble thing in nature; but he is a thinking reed … But, if the universe were to crush him, man would still be more noble than that which killed him, because he knows that he dies and the advantage which the universe has over him; the universe knows nothing of this’. Consciousness, although contingent and frail, is qualitatively unique and is of great value.

Scientific knowledge is not the only sort of knowledge that is important to persons. ‘I love my wife’ is an important piece of knowledge to me, but it cannot be derived scientifically. It is an example of what is sometimes called ‘personalistic knowledge’.

Frank Jackson formally demonstrates the validity of such personalistic knowledge. If physical science can tell us all that can be known then a colourblind person must be able to know what it is to see red. We can construct this knowledge scientifically around a model of having the right sort of cones in the retina to perceive incident light with a wavelength of 650 nm. Yet if this person, in possession of all available knowledge about redness, were to be cured of their colour blindness then they will learn something new that they did not know before, what it is to see red. Jackson’s argument is a demonstration of something both profound and also obvious to all but the most extreme physicalist. What it is to be me cannot be contained within a scientific account of the self.

Sure, we could join a narrow band of neuroscientists and say that our consciousness is a cognitive delusion. The belief that the methods of natural science are valid in all fields of human enquiry is called ‘Scientism’. Scientism seems touchingly modernistic, and reminiscent of other imperialist systems such as Communism, or Hegel’s belief that in fact it is philosophy that defines and encompasses all truth.

Sellars claims that the scientific image of man is not able to encompass or comprehend the manifest image but that both are equally valid ways of knowing about man. As humans, personalistic knowledge is our fundamental concern. If science showed that in fact E = MC3 I would be surprised but not fundamentally disturbed. But mess with my personalistic knowledge and that affects me deeply.

CPD further study and reflective notes

The notes in Boxes 1 and 2 will help you to read and reflect further on any of the brief articles in this series. If this learning relates to your professional development then you should put it in your annual PDP and claim self-certified CPD points within the RCGP guidelines set out at http://bit.ly/14GS5NS.

Box 1. Reflective notes

  • Do you primarily use Sellars’ scientific image or a manifest image when thinking about yourself and those close to you?

  • Do we understand our patients fully via both a scientific image and a manifest image or do we just do biomedicine?

  • Does QOF make it easier or more difficult for us in keeping to a holistic view of our patients?

Box 2. Further reading

Primary source

Sellars W. Philosophy and the scientific image of man. In: Colodny RG (ed.). Frontiers of science and philosophy. Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh Press, 1962: 41. http://bonevac.info/303/PhilosophyandtheScientificImageofMan.pdf (accessed 30 Jul 2013). This is perhaps a challenging text for a non-philosopher — why not give it a go!

Further study

Polanyi M. Personal knowledge. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1958. (Modern reprints available).

If your reading and reflection is occasional and opportunistic, claims in this one area should not exceed 10 CPD credits per year. However if you decide to use this material to develop your understanding of medical philosophy and ethics as a significant part of a PDP, say over 2 years, then a larger number of credits can be claimed so long as there is evidence of balance over a 5-year cycle. These credits should demonstrate the impact of your reflection on your practice (for example, by way of case studies or other evidence), and must be validated by your appraiser.

  • © British Journal of General Practice 2013
View Abstract
Back to top
Previous ArticleNext Article

In this issue

British Journal of General Practice: 63 (614)
British Journal of General Practice
Vol. 63, Issue 614
September 2013
  • Table of Contents
  • Index by author
Download PDF
Article Alerts
Or,
sign in or create an account with your email address
Email Article

Thank you for recommending British Journal of General Practice.

NOTE: We only request your email address so that the person to whom you are recommending the page knows that you wanted them to see it, and that it is not junk mail. We do not capture any email address.

Enter multiple addresses on separate lines or separate them with commas.
Image of man — the ‘scientific’ versus ‘manifest’ images of Wilfrid Sellars
(Your Name) has forwarded a page to you from British Journal of General Practice
(Your Name) thought you would like to see this page from British Journal of General Practice.
CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.
Citation Tools
Image of man — the ‘scientific’ versus ‘manifest’ images of Wilfrid Sellars
David Misselbrook
British Journal of General Practice 2013; 63 (614): 484. DOI: 10.3399/bjgp13X671696

Citation Manager Formats

  • BibTeX
  • Bookends
  • EasyBib
  • EndNote (tagged)
  • EndNote 8 (xml)
  • Medlars
  • Mendeley
  • Papers
  • RefWorks Tagged
  • Ref Manager
  • RIS
  • Zotero

Share
Image of man — the ‘scientific’ versus ‘manifest’ images of Wilfrid Sellars
David Misselbrook
British Journal of General Practice 2013; 63 (614): 484. DOI: 10.3399/bjgp13X671696
del.icio.us logo Digg logo Reddit logo Twitter logo CiteULike logo Facebook logo Google logo Mendeley logo
  • Tweet Widget
  • Facebook Like
  • Google Plus One
  • Mendeley logo Mendeley

Jump to section

  • Top
  • Article
    • CPD further study and reflective notes
  • Info
  • eLetters
  • PDF

More in this TOC Section

Out of Hours

  • Fakery and science
  • Viewpoint: Redundant subjectivity?
  • Books: A Layman’s Guide to Psychiatry and Psychoanalysis
Show more Out of Hours

An A–Z of medical philosophy

  • W is for Wellbeing and the WHO definition of health
  • Tragedy — a walk on the wild side
  • Q is for Qualia
Show more An A–Z of medical philosophy

Related Articles

Cited By...

Advertisement

BJGP Life

BJGP Open

 

@BJGPjournal's Likes on Twitter

 
 

British Journal of General Practice

NAVIGATE

  • Home
  • Current Issue
  • All Issues
  • Online First
  • Authors & reviewers

RCGP

  • BJGP for RCGP members
  • BJGP Open
  • RCGP eLearning
  • InnovAiT Journal
  • Jobs and careers
  • RCGP e-Portfolio

MY ACCOUNT

  • RCGP members' login
  • Subscriber login
  • Activate subscription
  • Terms and conditions

NEWS AND UPDATES

  • About BJGP
  • Alerts
  • RSS feeds
  • Facebook
  • Twitter

AUTHORS & REVIEWERS

  • Submit an article
  • Writing for BJGP: research
  • Writing for BJGP: other sections
  • BJGP editorial process & policies
  • BJGP ethical guidelines
  • Peer review for BJGP

CUSTOMER SERVICES

  • Advertising
  • Contact subscription agent
  • Copyright
  • Librarian information

CONTRIBUTE

  • BJGP Life
  • eLetters
  • Feedback

CONTACT US

BJGP Journal Office
RCGP
30 Euston Square
London NW1 2FB
Tel: +44 (0)20 3188 7679
Email: journal@rcgp.org.uk

British Journal of General Practice is an editorially-independent publication of the Royal College of General Practitioners
© 2021 British Journal of General Practice

Print ISSN: 0960-1643
Online ISSN: 1478-5242