Affiliation:
1. Cotton-Hannah Professor of the History of Medicine, McGill University, Department of Social Studies of Medicine
Abstract
Bates argues that understanding the historical relationship between medicine and science can help to clarify what science itself is, and exactly how it differs from other kinds of knowledge. In particular, it is directly relevant to the so-called "Needham question": why did the Scientific Revolution happen in western Europe, even though the East, particularly China, boasted greater achievements in technology? The question needs to be re-framed: it is not technology which made the Scientific Revolution, but mechanism. Medicine as a philosophical inquiry into life-processes, though often dismissed as impervious to the Scientific Revolution, was actually a driving force for mechanism. This is because the new mechanism of the 17th century was a fusion of revived ancient itomism with another ancient style of mechanistic thinking, which Bates called “organic mechanism” or “technism.” The primary expression or organic mechanism was in living things-the focus of medical reflection. Medicine's role in developing these ideas of nature as soul in what Don Bates calls Phase I of the Western Intellectual Tradition (Antiquity to the Renaissance), had a crucial impact on the Scientific Revolution, or what Bates refers to as Phase II of the Western Intellectual Tradition. The centrality of medicine to the evolving concept of mechanism truly makes it "the soul of science."
Publisher
University of Toronto Press Inc. (UTPress)
Cited by
3 articles.
订阅此论文施引文献
订阅此论文施引文献,注册后可以免费订阅5篇论文的施引文献,订阅后可以查看论文全部施引文献