Semmelweis’ discovery of the etiology of childbed fever has long attracted the attention of historians of medicine and biographers. In recent years it has also become of increasing interest to philosophers. In this paper I discuss the interpretation of Semmelweis’ methodology from the viewpoint of the inference to the best explanation and argue that Popperian methodology is better at capturing the dynamics of the growth of knowledge. Furthermore, I criticize the attempts to explain the failure of Semmelweis to have his discovery accepted on the basis of the Kuhnian concept of paradigms, and warn that this view may endorse dogmatism as the norm The Kuhnian position also raises the problem of the authoritarian nature of scientific institutions which defend a paradigm against unorthodox, rebellious views, such as in the case of Semmelweis. Popperian philosophy is seen as a challenge to promote a link between an open society and open science with its main aim being to cherish a free critical spirit.

塞麦尔维斯对产褥热病因的发现长期以来引起了医学史学家和传记作家的关注。近年来，它也越来越受到哲学家的关注。在本文中，我从最佳解释推理的角度讨论了对塞梅尔维斯方法论的解释，并认为波普尔方法论更善于捕捉知识增长的动态。此外，我批评试图解释塞麦尔维斯未能在库恩范式概念的基础上让他的发现被接受，并警告说，这种观点可能会认可教条主义作为规范。库恩的立场还提出了捍卫范式、反对非正统、反叛观点的科学机构，例如塞梅尔维斯的例子。波普尔哲学被视为促进开放社会与开放科学之间联系的挑战，其主要目标是珍惜自由的批判精神。