机制。视觉,词汇和概念的历史

IF 0.9 3区 哲学 Q2 HISTORY & PHILOSOPHY OF SCIENCE
S. Roux
{"title":"机制。视觉,词汇和概念的历史","authors":"S. Roux","doi":"10.1080/00033790.2022.2078506","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Domenico Bertoloni Meli’sMechanism. A Visual, Lexical and Conceptual History began as the A. W. Mellon Distinguished Lectures in the History of Science presented at the University of Pittsburgh in 2006. It is focused on the emergence, development, and systematization of the notion of mechanism in the seventeenth century, particularly in anatomy, medicine and the life sciences. The first chapter is devoted to defining mechanism by comparison with allied notions – e.g. machines or artificial devices – and by contrast with others – e.g. faculties of the soul, vital properties or teleological explanations – but also to underlining the ambivalence of ferments, active principles, seminal principles and plastic virtues, all of which could refer to something immaterial yet also be ‘mechanized’. An excursus on Galen opposes mechanisms to the immaterial faculties of the soul, and some of the tensions involved in the search for mechanisms are revealed – the tension between the notions that intervene in the explanations of macroscopic phenomena and the ambition to reduce these phenomena to the motions of microscopic corpuscles endowed with merely quantitative properties, but also the tension between imperfect machines made by us and the perfect machines of nature made by God. The second chapter explores the affinity between visual representations and mechanisms, which consist of spatial arrangements of moving parts: after a nuanced view of the historiographical controversy between David Edgerton and Michael Mahoney about the effect new forms of representation might have had on the transformation of knowledge during the Scientific Revolution, the bulk of this chapter analyses anatomical representations in the long century between Andreas Vesalius (1514–1564) and Robert Hooke (1635–1703). The third chapter studies the emergence of the term ‘mechanism’ at the beginnings of the Royal Society, whether it intervened in the explanations of specific natural phenomena or in discussions of philosophical and theological issues; two theses, quite correct in my opinion, are defended: first, the thesis that what is mechanical is defined by contrast with what is not mechanical, and, second, the thesis that what is not mechanical has varied in history. The main figure of the fourth and last chapter is Marcello Malpighi (1628–1694), to whom Bertoloni Meli had already devoted two books; the present chapter focuses on the generation of animals, which brings together different threads previously encountered. This brief book (142 pages, including a number of black and white illustrations, plus notes, bibliography and index) is very rich in detailed analyses. It is sure to impress even the most critical of readers in the history of science and medicine. More generally, it is also incisive and thought-provoking because of some of its methodological commitments, which were already present in Bertoloni Meli’s previous books. First, as in Thinking with Objects, the reader is invited to focus, not on the few general statements that form the programmatic horizon of the sciences, but on small problems that keep scientists busy in their day-to-day intellectual life. One of the seminal points in Thinking with Objects was that, to reconstruct seventeenth-century mechanics, one should consider not only a few fundamental laws of motion, but also small objects like","PeriodicalId":8086,"journal":{"name":"Annals of Science","volume":"79 1","pages":"411 - 413"},"PeriodicalIF":0.9000,"publicationDate":"2022-05-20","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Mechanism. A visual, lexical and conceptual history\",\"authors\":\"S. Roux\",\"doi\":\"10.1080/00033790.2022.2078506\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Domenico Bertoloni Meli’sMechanism. A Visual, Lexical and Conceptual History began as the A. W. Mellon Distinguished Lectures in the History of Science presented at the University of Pittsburgh in 2006. It is focused on the emergence, development, and systematization of the notion of mechanism in the seventeenth century, particularly in anatomy, medicine and the life sciences. The first chapter is devoted to defining mechanism by comparison with allied notions – e.g. machines or artificial devices – and by contrast with others – e.g. faculties of the soul, vital properties or teleological explanations – but also to underlining the ambivalence of ferments, active principles, seminal principles and plastic virtues, all of which could refer to something immaterial yet also be ‘mechanized’. An excursus on Galen opposes mechanisms to the immaterial faculties of the soul, and some of the tensions involved in the search for mechanisms are revealed – the tension between the notions that intervene in the explanations of macroscopic phenomena and the ambition to reduce these phenomena to the motions of microscopic corpuscles endowed with merely quantitative properties, but also the tension between imperfect machines made by us and the perfect machines of nature made by God. The second chapter explores the affinity between visual representations and mechanisms, which consist of spatial arrangements of moving parts: after a nuanced view of the historiographical controversy between David Edgerton and Michael Mahoney about the effect new forms of representation might have had on the transformation of knowledge during the Scientific Revolution, the bulk of this chapter analyses anatomical representations in the long century between Andreas Vesalius (1514–1564) and Robert Hooke (1635–1703). The third chapter studies the emergence of the term ‘mechanism’ at the beginnings of the Royal Society, whether it intervened in the explanations of specific natural phenomena or in discussions of philosophical and theological issues; two theses, quite correct in my opinion, are defended: first, the thesis that what is mechanical is defined by contrast with what is not mechanical, and, second, the thesis that what is not mechanical has varied in history. The main figure of the fourth and last chapter is Marcello Malpighi (1628–1694), to whom Bertoloni Meli had already devoted two books; the present chapter focuses on the generation of animals, which brings together different threads previously encountered. This brief book (142 pages, including a number of black and white illustrations, plus notes, bibliography and index) is very rich in detailed analyses. It is sure to impress even the most critical of readers in the history of science and medicine. More generally, it is also incisive and thought-provoking because of some of its methodological commitments, which were already present in Bertoloni Meli’s previous books. First, as in Thinking with Objects, the reader is invited to focus, not on the few general statements that form the programmatic horizon of the sciences, but on small problems that keep scientists busy in their day-to-day intellectual life. One of the seminal points in Thinking with Objects was that, to reconstruct seventeenth-century mechanics, one should consider not only a few fundamental laws of motion, but also small objects like\",\"PeriodicalId\":8086,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Annals of Science\",\"volume\":\"79 1\",\"pages\":\"411 - 413\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.9000,\"publicationDate\":\"2022-05-20\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"1\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Annals of Science\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"98\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1080/00033790.2022.2078506\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"哲学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"HISTORY & PHILOSOPHY OF SCIENCE\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Annals of Science","FirstCategoryId":"98","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/00033790.2022.2078506","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"HISTORY & PHILOSOPHY OF SCIENCE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

摘要

Domenico Bertoloni Meli的机制。《视觉、词汇和概念史》始于2006年在匹兹堡大学举行的A·w·梅隆科学史杰出讲座。它的重点是17世纪机制概念的出现、发展和系统化,特别是在解剖学、医学和生命科学方面。第一章致力于通过与相关概念(如机器或人工设备)的比较来定义机制,并通过与其他概念(如灵魂的能力、生命属性或目的论解释)的对比来定义机制,但也强调了发酵、活动原则、种子原则和可塑性美德的矛盾心理,所有这些都可以指非物质的东西,但也可以被“机械化”。关于盖伦的一篇短途文章将机制与灵魂的非物质能力进行了对比,揭示了寻找机制所涉及的一些紧张关系——干预宏观现象解释的概念与将这些现象简化为仅具有定量特性的微观微粒运动的野心之间的紧张关系,以及我们制造的不完美机器与上帝制造的完美自然机器之间的紧张关系。第二章探讨了视觉表征与机制之间的关系,机制是由运动部件的空间安排构成的:在对大卫·埃杰顿和迈克尔·马奥尼之间关于科学革命期间新表现形式可能对知识转变产生的影响的史学争论进行细致的分析之后,本章的大部分内容分析了安德里亚斯·维萨里(Andreas Vesalius, 1514-1564)和罗伯特·胡克(Robert Hooke, 1635-1703)之间漫长世纪的解剖学表现。第三章研究了“机制”一词在皇家学会成立之初的出现,无论它是否介入对特定自然现象的解释,还是在哲学和神学问题的讨论中;有两个论点在我看来是非常正确的:第一,机械是通过与非机械的对比来定义的论点;第二,非机械的论点在历史上是不同的。第四章也是最后一章的主要人物是马塞洛·马尔皮吉(1628-1694),贝托洛尼·梅利已经为他写了两本书;本章的重点是动物的世代,它汇集了以前遇到的不同线索。这本简短的书(142页,包括一些黑白插图,加上注释,参考书目和索引)非常丰富的详细分析。即使是科学史和医学史上最挑剔的读者,它也一定会给他们留下深刻的印象。更一般地说,它也是深刻的和发人深省的,因为它的一些方法论承诺,已经出现在Bertoloni Meli之前的书中。首先,就像在《用对象思考》中一样,读者被邀请去关注那些让科学家在他们的日常智力生活中忙碌的小问题,而不是那些构成科学规划视野的几个一般陈述。《用物体思考》一书的一个重要观点是,要重建17世纪的力学,人们不仅要考虑一些基本的运动定律,还要考虑像牛顿这样的小物体
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Mechanism. A visual, lexical and conceptual history
Domenico Bertoloni Meli’sMechanism. A Visual, Lexical and Conceptual History began as the A. W. Mellon Distinguished Lectures in the History of Science presented at the University of Pittsburgh in 2006. It is focused on the emergence, development, and systematization of the notion of mechanism in the seventeenth century, particularly in anatomy, medicine and the life sciences. The first chapter is devoted to defining mechanism by comparison with allied notions – e.g. machines or artificial devices – and by contrast with others – e.g. faculties of the soul, vital properties or teleological explanations – but also to underlining the ambivalence of ferments, active principles, seminal principles and plastic virtues, all of which could refer to something immaterial yet also be ‘mechanized’. An excursus on Galen opposes mechanisms to the immaterial faculties of the soul, and some of the tensions involved in the search for mechanisms are revealed – the tension between the notions that intervene in the explanations of macroscopic phenomena and the ambition to reduce these phenomena to the motions of microscopic corpuscles endowed with merely quantitative properties, but also the tension between imperfect machines made by us and the perfect machines of nature made by God. The second chapter explores the affinity between visual representations and mechanisms, which consist of spatial arrangements of moving parts: after a nuanced view of the historiographical controversy between David Edgerton and Michael Mahoney about the effect new forms of representation might have had on the transformation of knowledge during the Scientific Revolution, the bulk of this chapter analyses anatomical representations in the long century between Andreas Vesalius (1514–1564) and Robert Hooke (1635–1703). The third chapter studies the emergence of the term ‘mechanism’ at the beginnings of the Royal Society, whether it intervened in the explanations of specific natural phenomena or in discussions of philosophical and theological issues; two theses, quite correct in my opinion, are defended: first, the thesis that what is mechanical is defined by contrast with what is not mechanical, and, second, the thesis that what is not mechanical has varied in history. The main figure of the fourth and last chapter is Marcello Malpighi (1628–1694), to whom Bertoloni Meli had already devoted two books; the present chapter focuses on the generation of animals, which brings together different threads previously encountered. This brief book (142 pages, including a number of black and white illustrations, plus notes, bibliography and index) is very rich in detailed analyses. It is sure to impress even the most critical of readers in the history of science and medicine. More generally, it is also incisive and thought-provoking because of some of its methodological commitments, which were already present in Bertoloni Meli’s previous books. First, as in Thinking with Objects, the reader is invited to focus, not on the few general statements that form the programmatic horizon of the sciences, but on small problems that keep scientists busy in their day-to-day intellectual life. One of the seminal points in Thinking with Objects was that, to reconstruct seventeenth-century mechanics, one should consider not only a few fundamental laws of motion, but also small objects like
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
Annals of Science
Annals of Science 综合性期刊-科学史与科学哲学
CiteScore
0.80
自引率
0.00%
发文量
22
审稿时长
1 months
期刊介绍: Annals of Science , launched in 1936, publishes work on the history of science, technology and medicine, covering developments from classical antiquity to the late 20th century. The Journal has a global reach, both in terms of the work that it publishes, and also in terms of its readership. The editors particularly welcome submissions from authors in Asia, Africa and South America. Each issue contains research articles, and a comprehensive book reviews section, including essay reviews on a group of books on a broader level. Articles are published in both English and French, and the Journal welcomes proposals for special issues on relevant topics. The Editors and Publisher are committed to supporting early career researchers, and award an annual prize to the best submission from current doctoral students, or those awarded a doctorate in the past four years.
×
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