I am supposed to write a research paper for a class at university, and I am researching the rise of scientific medicine, which my professor assigned specific dates to each topic, mine being 1850-1913. However, a significant portion of medical literature contradicts itself on what exactly scientific medicine is. For example, some books claim that modern medicine and scientific medicine are homogenous, while others claim they are not. Some books claim that all medicine, in a sense, is scientific. I searched for the definition of scientific medicine on Google, Yahoo, Bing, and many other ubiquitously utilized search engines, and the only definition I found was as followed: n A term used to describe the form of medicine derived from the Flexnerian Reformation of medical education and the Germ Theory in the early 1900s. However, the aforementioned definition conflicts with the dates I was originally assigned. So, what is the exact definition of scientific medicine and how is it heterogeneous from other forms of medicine? Technically, scientific laws govern all matter; so therefore, all medicine can be considered scientific, despite how inane or ineffective it is. However one could propose and logically argue that previous medicine merely was technology because people knew it either was effective or useless, thus differentiating it from scientific medicine, which explains the physiology on why certain medical practices and drugs are effective and some are not. This information is ambiguous, and I am extremely confused. Can anyone shed some light on the matter please?