{"title":"如何在教学一致性和经验反证据之间做出选择?丹尼尔·塞纳特《自然科学概论》的四个版本","authors":"Christoph Lüthy","doi":"10.1163/15733823-20251359","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p>In the academic year 1599–1600, Daniel Sennert offered a course on natural philosophy at the University of Wittenberg. When it was finished, he bundled the set of 26 disputations that accompanied the course into a separate publication and entitled it <i>Epitome naturalis scientiæ</i>. Although he was professor of medicine from 1602 onwards, he continued to work on natural philosophy and published three further versions of his <i>Epitome</i>, now in the form of a textbook. This article offers a comparative analysis of all four versions, dated 1599/1600, 1618, 1624, and 1632/33 respectively. It documents that Sennert insisted on the importance of providing students with a coherent body of doctrine, which he felt had to be Aristotelian, but at the same time introduced new empirical material into his textbooks. While these additions worked well in the case of his natural historical inserts, they were problematic in the case of his turn to an atomistic theory of matter, and they involved a full contradiction in the case of cosmology. Sennert’s case illustrates a key problem for university pedagogues in the pre-Cartesian part of the seventeenth century – namely, that of maintaining a coherent curriculum in the face of mounting counterevidence against the traditional framework.</p>","PeriodicalId":49081,"journal":{"name":"Early Science and Medicine","volume":"349 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.2000,"publicationDate":"2025-10-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"How to Choose between Pedagogical Coherence and Empirical Counterevidence? The Four Versions of Daniel Sennert’s Epitome naturalis scientiæ\",\"authors\":\"Christoph Lüthy\",\"doi\":\"10.1163/15733823-20251359\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p>In the academic year 1599–1600, Daniel Sennert offered a course on natural philosophy at the University of Wittenberg. When it was finished, he bundled the set of 26 disputations that accompanied the course into a separate publication and entitled it <i>Epitome naturalis scientiæ</i>. Although he was professor of medicine from 1602 onwards, he continued to work on natural philosophy and published three further versions of his <i>Epitome</i>, now in the form of a textbook. This article offers a comparative analysis of all four versions, dated 1599/1600, 1618, 1624, and 1632/33 respectively. It documents that Sennert insisted on the importance of providing students with a coherent body of doctrine, which he felt had to be Aristotelian, but at the same time introduced new empirical material into his textbooks. While these additions worked well in the case of his natural historical inserts, they were problematic in the case of his turn to an atomistic theory of matter, and they involved a full contradiction in the case of cosmology. Sennert’s case illustrates a key problem for university pedagogues in the pre-Cartesian part of the seventeenth century – namely, that of maintaining a coherent curriculum in the face of mounting counterevidence against the traditional framework.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":49081,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Early Science and Medicine\",\"volume\":\"349 1\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.2000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-10-02\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Early Science and Medicine\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"98\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1163/15733823-20251359\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"哲学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"HISTORY & PHILOSOPHY OF SCIENCE\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Early Science and Medicine","FirstCategoryId":"98","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1163/15733823-20251359","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"HISTORY & PHILOSOPHY OF SCIENCE","Score":null,"Total":0}
How to Choose between Pedagogical Coherence and Empirical Counterevidence? The Four Versions of Daniel Sennert’s Epitome naturalis scientiæ
In the academic year 1599–1600, Daniel Sennert offered a course on natural philosophy at the University of Wittenberg. When it was finished, he bundled the set of 26 disputations that accompanied the course into a separate publication and entitled it Epitome naturalis scientiæ. Although he was professor of medicine from 1602 onwards, he continued to work on natural philosophy and published three further versions of his Epitome, now in the form of a textbook. This article offers a comparative analysis of all four versions, dated 1599/1600, 1618, 1624, and 1632/33 respectively. It documents that Sennert insisted on the importance of providing students with a coherent body of doctrine, which he felt had to be Aristotelian, but at the same time introduced new empirical material into his textbooks. While these additions worked well in the case of his natural historical inserts, they were problematic in the case of his turn to an atomistic theory of matter, and they involved a full contradiction in the case of cosmology. Sennert’s case illustrates a key problem for university pedagogues in the pre-Cartesian part of the seventeenth century – namely, that of maintaining a coherent curriculum in the face of mounting counterevidence against the traditional framework.
期刊介绍:
Early Science and Medicine (ESM) is a peer-reviewed international journal dedicated to the history of science, medicine and technology from the earliest times through to the end of the eighteenth century. The need to treat in a single journal all aspects of scientific activity and thought to the eighteenth century is due to two factors: to the continued importance of ancient sources throughout the Middle Ages and the early modern period, and to the comparably low degree of specialization and the high degree of disciplinary interdependence characterizing the period before the professionalization of science.