William Harvey and the ‘Way of the Anatomists’
William Harvey and the ‘Way of the Anatomists’
复制标题
威廉·哈维和“解剖学家之路”
DOI：
10.1177/007327538302100301
复制
发表时间：
1983
影响因子：
0.5
通讯作者：
A. Wear
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
A. Wear
威廉·哈维这个谜一直被历代历史学家所迷惑，我在本文中的目的是在一个有限的范围内提供材料和解释，这可能有助于进一步阐明这个谜。哈维的方法论，他的认知方法，可以为我们提供线索，让我们了解他在《论心之论》中想要做什么。这可以从De motu cordis本身，从degeneres的开头给Riolanand的第二封信中收集到：出现的是一种一致的方法，知识来自观察，无论是对最初的发现者还是读者（为了获得知识，读者也必须用自己的眼睛看）。因此，发现和教学遵循相同的过程。理性的作用即使不是无用的，也是微不足道的。正是这种部分源于解剖学传统的经验主义，哈维试图将其与亚里士多德的方法论结合起来（两者并不矛盾，因为两者都同意知识来自观察）。虽然在本文中，我只关注解剖学对哈维方法论的影响，但这并不意味着我打算挑战亚里士多德对哈维的影响；相反，我为他的方法论添加了一个新的来源。他希望哈维要么是忠实的亚里士多德主义者，要么是纯粹的现代人，或者两者兼而有之。盖伦和解剖学传统是他帕多瓦训练的基础，他有时也会对此做出反应，但这并没有被恰当地评估为对他工作的影响。虽然格温妮丝·惠特里奇正确地强调了哈维的解剖学和观察方面，但她对解剖学家哈维的理解却受到了现代科学方法观点的影响。另一方面，Jerome Bylebyl很好地描述了哈维对解剖学传统的贡献，但他将其影响局限于《论生命》的第一部分，并将后面处理血液循环的关键章节置于亚里士多德论证性证明方法论的背景下。”正如我将要展示的那样，这是对像Harvey这样的解剖学家的论证意义的误解，我将反对Whitteridge和Bylebyl的观点，即《论心之论》的第9到14章应该被看作是一个解剖学的论证而不是一个论证性的证明。这个讨论将提供一个进入哈维作为解剖学家的一般方法论的入口，同时有助于将其从时代错误中拯救出来。参考andreas Laurentius的著作中所代表的解剖学传统，将使我们能够了解它是如何发生的
The enigma that is William Harvey has been puzzled over by successive historians." and my purpose in this paper is to offer material and interpretation within a limited scope which may help to elucidate the riddle further. Harvey's methodology, his method ofknowledge, can give us a clue to what he was trying to do in De motu cordis. This can be gleaned from De motu cordis itself, from the Second letterto Riolanand from the opening ofDegenerations: what emerges is a consistent approach in which knowledge comes from observation, both for the original discoverer and for the reader (who has also to see with his own eyes in order to gain knowledge). Discovery and teaching thus follow the same process. The role of reason is often minor ifnot nugatory. It was this empiricism, in part derived from the anatomical tradition, that Harvey tried to unite with Aristotelian methodology(the two were not incompatible as both agreed that knowledge came from observation). Although in this paper I am solely concerned with the anatomical influence on Harvey's methodology this does not mean that I intend challenging the Aristotelian influence on Harvey; rather, I am adding a new source for his methodology. In the desire to see Harvey as either a devoted Aristotelian or a pure modern or, paradoxically, as both.i' the Galenic and anatomical tradition which underlay his Paduan training and against which he at times reacted has not been properly assessed as an influence in his work. Although Gweneth Whitteridge has rightly emphasized the anatomical and observational side ofHarvey, her understanding ofHarvey the anatomist has been coloured by modern views ofscientific method. Jerome Bylebyl, on the other hand, has given a good account of Harvey's debt to the anatomical tradition but has limited its influence only to the first part of De motu cordis and has placed the crucial later chapters dealing with the circulation of the blood in the context of the Aristotelian methodology of a demonstrative proof." This, as I will show, is to misunderstand what demonstration meant for an anatomist like Harvey and I will argue against both Whitteridge and Bylebyl that chapters 9 to 14 of De motu cordis should be seen in terms of an anatomical demonstration rather than a demonstrative proof. This discussion will provide an entree into Harvey's general methodology qua anatomist and at the same time help to rescue it from an anachronism. Reference to the anatomical tradition represented in the writing ofAndreas Laurentius will enable us to see how it was