Today's reading was the chapter in Lindberg on Greek and Roman medicine. I found this to be interesting reading and as a further reading note would like to finish the book as time permits. Overall I am beginning to get more of a feel for the progression of the course and how biology in particular has developed over the centuries. I am particularly fascinated by the teleological ideas as they pertain to the human body and its study, and how the author defends Galen's work and stresses that it must be viewed within the context of what was known and understood in the second century. As Lindberg points out we still obviously don't have all the answers today, and it's inappropriate to laugh at the idea that the ancient gods were responsible for some diseases when we today have scientific studies concerned with whether prayer somehow speeds up the healing process.
The section on Hippocratic medicine was interesting to me, because of course we are all familiar with the Hippocratic oath that doctors still take today. Apparently they were among the first to emphasize disease and health and deemphasize supernatural aspects of medicine. The four "humors" and their balance are mentioned, but they also used case histories and learned methods to make diagnoses and prognoses and inquiry and a critical approach in this process. Apparently it wasn't until the third century that human and animal dissection and more concern with anatomical and physiological structure and function became prevalent. Herophilus and Erasistratus are mentioned regarding their ideas of how the human body functions, and came up with ideas like pneuma, arteries, veins, and how the nervous system works. It was also interesting to me how the Hellenistic sects came about and the contrasting viewpoints they presented. I wonder if there had been more cohesion of thought and practice if medicine and and biology could have advanced further and faster during this time. It seems to me if the "empiricists" and "rationalists" had worked together they were both on the right track, but coming from different directions. The "pneumatists" and other groups seemed to be less productive in their thinking and practices.
After having said that, Galen comes along and he is by far the most interesting part of the reading. As a further reading note anything about him would be interesting to me. As a teacher, I could point to him as an example of one who drew from various disciplines and schools of thought to create his own useful advancements, ideas and methods. I stress to my students to always be open-minded, learn a variety of viewpoints from a variety of sources and incorporate their best individual aspects into what you feel is the optimal solution or hypothesis. Closed-mindedness is both the scientist's and general educated person's worst enemy, in my opinion.
I would like to see examples of Galen's anatomical work, and it is fascinating how he tied the three physiological components (heart, brain, and liver ) to Platos' three faculties of the soul (passion, rational thought, and appetite). He actually understood the physiology of the cardiovascular system reasonably well, given the limitations of the time. In conclusion Galen is an intriguing figure in historical science and was probably the highlight of this reading for me.
Bibliographic Note:
David C. Lindberg, The Beginnings of Western Science, (Chicago, University of Chicago Press, 1992). This book is a wonderful and informative discussion of the European scientific tradition in philosophica, religious, and institutional context from 600 B.C. to A.D. 1450.
Further Study Note:
Charles Singer, A Short History of Anatomy and Physiology from the Greeks to Harvey
Temkin, Galenism
Karl E. Rothschuh, History of Physiology
1 comment:
Dr. Magruder, it is very difficult sometimes to avoid being "whiggish", but half the battle is just being aware of it, and I am trying to consider my readings in a more critical, and well-trained eye.
Post a Comment