This was one of the best readings yet, and provided lots of ideas for items I would like to view and study further when I visit the collections again, as outlined below in my Further Reading addendum. The reading was Chapter 5 in Westfall titled "Biology and the Mechanical Philosophy", and as the title suggests the focus was on the interactions and tension between organicist and mechanistic philosophies in the 17th century. This chapter opened my eyes to some things I have always wondered about, specifically why biology in general and microscopy didn't advance at a greater rate than it did during this time frame. Westfall actually calls mechanical philosophy "crudity itself", and because it held sway over scientific thinking at the time it hindered progress in biology greatly.
Some of the interesting aspects of this reading include the author citing workers such as Bauhin and Ray and how Linnaeus used their studies as a foundation for his, and yet Westfall succombs to hagiography when he describes Linnaeus as a "god among heroes". Nevertheless it was fascinating to read about the development of what has led to our modern system of taxonomy. I have always had a particular interest in microbiology and embryology, so this reading's discussion of the development of the microscope held my attention, with all the implications it entailed. Francesco Stuuti was a name I was not familiar with, and I loved Jonathon Swift's cynical little poem as well. I also appreciated how the trials of figuring out human circulation led into the embryological aspects of Harvey and others observing the pulsing heart in chick embryos.
One of the most surprising aspects of the reading for me, not being familiar with Mechanical philosophy, was how Descartes and others tried so hard to explain away organic ideas of life with their own mechanistic theories. The idea of iatromechanics was new to me as well, and it was fascinating how Borelli tried to explain human movements in terms of machines. Of course, to play devil's advocate, one could even today try to view life as a series of chemical reactions, minus the view of any kind of "life-force". This made me think of Richard Dawkins and the idea that a living thing is just a vessel to facilitate the replication of the genetic material it contains. I was happy to see the discussion lead into embryology and spontaneous generation as scientists tried to explain reproduction and development, given the context of the times and the face-off between the organicists and mechanists. It was amazing to think about Descartes and others trying to explain development as an unfolding of pre-existing parts, and in such stark contrast to the thinking and works of Harvey, Malpighi, Camerarius, Graaf, and others. Westfall points out that for all the 17th century organicist embryologists accomplished, they had yet to account for the most obvious fact of generation, that offspring can and do inherit characteristics from both parents.
As an educator, I feel so much more knowledgeable about this era in biology than I did before, I can more comfortably discuss with my students the various points of view that collectively drove biology forward. It was heartening to find out more about the works of scientists I thought I knew about, only to see there was much more at work than I was aware of. This reading filled in a lot of gaps in my own knowledge and understanding, and having access to the collections at OU makes it that much more fascinating and informative.
Bibliographic Note:
Richard S. Westfall, The Construction of Modern Science: Mechanisms and Mechanics, (New York, John Wiley and Sons, Inc., (1971)
Further Reading Note:
Descartes, The Description of the Human Body and Treatise on Man
William Harvey, On the Generation of Animals and On the Motion of the Heart and Blood
Robert Hooke, Micrographia
Marcello Malphigi, Treatise on the Earthworm
John Ray, General History of Plants
No comments:
Post a Comment