Jesper Brandt Andersen
{"title":"Sælsomme beretninger i lægen og anatomen Thomas Bartholins skrifter","authors":"Jesper Brandt Andersen","doi":"10.7146/fof.v57i0.118769","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Jesper Brandt Andersen: Curious case reports in the works of the Danish physician and anatomist Thomas Bartholin \nScattered through the voluminous authorship of the Danish physician and anatomist Thomas Bartholin (1616–1680), famous for his discovery of the lymph vessels in the early 1650s, case reports can be found, for which Bartholin was criticized and accused for verbosity and lack of scientific judgment by contemporary scholars and later medical historians. In this article 15 such case reports, mainly from the work Historiarum Anatomicarum Rariorum 1654–1661, are presented, analyzed and perspectivated. It is concluded, that much of the criticism, especially the one submitted by the posteriority and especially during the era of positivism by the end of the 19th century and the beginning of the 20th century and the one concerning observations made by Bartholin himself, is unjustified. When practising science himself Bartholin felt responsible for reproducing his observations correctly and trustworthy, and he was not satisfied by making conclusions on the basis of knowledge handed over by others. The author of this article has not succeded in finding one single example indicating that Bartholin doesn’t reproduce his own observations correctly and truthfully. On the other hand there are in his authorship numerous examples of case reports originating from others, which he either didn’t believe himself or at least doubted. When he published case reports originating from other people, he didn’t feel responsible for the truthfulness. His purpose bringing these case reports was to present his reader for new and interesting matter, to entertain his reader, to arouse his reader’s curiosity and to challenge his reader’s own judgment. Thomas Bartholin was one of the most excellent, diligent and passionate intermediaries of scientific matter of his time, and as a scientist he was characterized by openness. Often he was among the first to recognize, verify and publish new knowledge.","PeriodicalId":219437,"journal":{"name":"Fund og Forskning i Det Kongelige Biblioteks Samlinger","volume":"80 3 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2018-09-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Fund og Forskning i Det Kongelige Biblioteks Samlinger","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.7146/fof.v57i0.118769","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

丹麦医生和解剖学家托马斯·巴托林(Thomas Bartholin, 1616-1680)因在1650年代早期发现淋巴管而闻名,在他的大量著作中,随处可见的病例报告被当代学者和后来的医学史学家批评和指责为冗长和缺乏科学判断。本文对15例此类病例报告进行了介绍、分析和展望,这些报告主要来自于《解剖学历史》(Historiarum Anatomicarum Rariorum 1654-1661)。结论是,许多批评,特别是由后来人提出的,特别是在实证主义的时代,在19世纪末和20世纪初,以及关于Bartholin自己的观察,是不合理的。当巴托林自己从事科学研究时,他感到有责任正确而可靠地再现他的观察结果,他不满足于在别人传授的知识的基础上做出结论。这篇文章的作者并没有成功地找到一个例子来表明Bartholin没有正确和真实地再现他自己的观察结果。另一方面,在他的著作中有许多来自他人的案例报告,他自己不相信,或者至少怀疑。当他发表别人的病例报告时,他不觉得对其真实性负责。他带来这些案例报告的目的是向他的读者展示新的和有趣的事情,娱乐他的读者,唤起读者的好奇心,挑战读者自己的判断。托马斯·巴托林是他那个时代最优秀、最勤奋、最热情的科学中间人之一,作为一名科学家,他的特点是开放性。他经常是最早发现、验证和发表新知识的人之一。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Sælsomme beretninger i lægen og anatomen Thomas Bartholins skrifter
Jesper Brandt Andersen: Curious case reports in the works of the Danish physician and anatomist Thomas Bartholin Scattered through the voluminous authorship of the Danish physician and anatomist Thomas Bartholin (1616–1680), famous for his discovery of the lymph vessels in the early 1650s, case reports can be found, for which Bartholin was criticized and accused for verbosity and lack of scientific judgment by contemporary scholars and later medical historians. In this article 15 such case reports, mainly from the work Historiarum Anatomicarum Rariorum 1654–1661, are presented, analyzed and perspectivated. It is concluded, that much of the criticism, especially the one submitted by the posteriority and especially during the era of positivism by the end of the 19th century and the beginning of the 20th century and the one concerning observations made by Bartholin himself, is unjustified. When practising science himself Bartholin felt responsible for reproducing his observations correctly and trustworthy, and he was not satisfied by making conclusions on the basis of knowledge handed over by others. The author of this article has not succeded in finding one single example indicating that Bartholin doesn’t reproduce his own observations correctly and truthfully. On the other hand there are in his authorship numerous examples of case reports originating from others, which he either didn’t believe himself or at least doubted. When he published case reports originating from other people, he didn’t feel responsible for the truthfulness. His purpose bringing these case reports was to present his reader for new and interesting matter, to entertain his reader, to arouse his reader’s curiosity and to challenge his reader’s own judgment. Thomas Bartholin was one of the most excellent, diligent and passionate intermediaries of scientific matter of his time, and as a scientist he was characterized by openness. Often he was among the first to recognize, verify and publish new knowledge.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信