Misconceptions created about Semmelweis's reasoning by the instrumental use of his work by philosophers of science

Philosophers of science have frequently used Semmelweis's work on childbed fever (CBF) as a case study to illustrate theories of scientific discovery and confirmation. However, the accounts of Semmelweis's work published in the philosophy of science literature are in many respect inconsistent with the account that Semmelweis gave of his own inferences and reasoning and are silent on how Semmelweis came to conclude that CBF was a form of pyaemia caused by the introduction of decaying animal-organic matter into the blood stream and why he accepted that the introduction of decomposed matter into the blood stream caused CBF. This has created serious misconceptions about Semmelweis's reasoning and conclusions. The purpose of this article is to correct these misconceptions by presenting a detailed textual exegesis of Semmelweis's own account of how he came to his conclusions, and to answer fundamental questions about the differences between the present account of Semmelweis's work and those published in the philosophy of science literature, namely, whether methodological differences in how the respective accounts were constructed explain the differences, and which account philosophers should accept and on what basis.