医生书房里的自然史:扬·斯瓦默丹(Jan Swammerdam, 1637-1680)、史蒂文·布兰卡特(Steven Blankaart, 1650-1705)以及观察昆虫的“文书工作”。

IF 0.7 1区 哲学 Q2 HISTORY & PHILOSOPHY OF SCIENCE British Journal for the History of Science Pub Date : 2020-12-01 Epub Date: 2020-10-29 DOI:10.1017/S0007087420000436
Saskia Klerk
{"title":"医生书房里的自然史:扬·斯瓦默丹(Jan Swammerdam, 1637-1680)、史蒂文·布兰卡特(Steven Blankaart, 1650-1705)以及观察昆虫的“文书工作”。","authors":"Saskia Klerk","doi":"10.1017/S0007087420000436","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>While some seventeenth-century scholars promoted natural history as the basis of natural philosophy, they continued to debate how it should be written, about what and by whom. This look into the studios of two Amsterdam physicians, Jan Swammerdam (1637-80) and Steven Blankaart (1650-1705), explores natural history as a project in the making during the second half of the seventeenth century. Swammerdam and Blankaart approached natural history very differently, with different objectives, and relying on different traditions of handling specimens and organizing knowledge on paper, especially with regard to the way that individual observations might be generalized. These traditions varied from collating individual dissections into histories, writing both general and particular histories of plants and animals, collecting medical observations and applying inductive reasoning. Swammerdam identified the essential changes that insects underwent during their life cycle, described four orders based on these 'general characteristics' and presented his findings in specific histories that exemplified the 'general rule' of each order. Blankaart looked to the collective observations of amateurs to support his reputation as a man of medicine, but this was not supposed to lead to any kind of generalization. Their work alerts us to the variety of observational practices that were available to them, and with what purposes they made these their own.</p>","PeriodicalId":46655,"journal":{"name":"British Journal for the History of Science","volume":"53 4","pages":"497-525"},"PeriodicalIF":0.7000,"publicationDate":"2020-12-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1017/S0007087420000436","citationCount":"1","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Natural history in the physician's study: Jan Swammerdam (1637-1680), Steven Blankaart (1650-1705) and the 'paperwork' of observing insects.\",\"authors\":\"Saskia Klerk\",\"doi\":\"10.1017/S0007087420000436\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>While some seventeenth-century scholars promoted natural history as the basis of natural philosophy, they continued to debate how it should be written, about what and by whom. This look into the studios of two Amsterdam physicians, Jan Swammerdam (1637-80) and Steven Blankaart (1650-1705), explores natural history as a project in the making during the second half of the seventeenth century. Swammerdam and Blankaart approached natural history very differently, with different objectives, and relying on different traditions of handling specimens and organizing knowledge on paper, especially with regard to the way that individual observations might be generalized. These traditions varied from collating individual dissections into histories, writing both general and particular histories of plants and animals, collecting medical observations and applying inductive reasoning. Swammerdam identified the essential changes that insects underwent during their life cycle, described four orders based on these 'general characteristics' and presented his findings in specific histories that exemplified the 'general rule' of each order. Blankaart looked to the collective observations of amateurs to support his reputation as a man of medicine, but this was not supposed to lead to any kind of generalization. Their work alerts us to the variety of observational practices that were available to them, and with what purposes they made these their own.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":46655,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"British Journal for the History of Science\",\"volume\":\"53 4\",\"pages\":\"497-525\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.7000,\"publicationDate\":\"2020-12-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1017/S0007087420000436\",\"citationCount\":\"1\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"British Journal for the History of Science\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"98\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1017/S0007087420000436\",\"RegionNum\":1,\"RegionCategory\":\"哲学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2020/10/29 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"Epub\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"HISTORY & PHILOSOPHY OF SCIENCE\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"British Journal for the History of Science","FirstCategoryId":"98","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1017/S0007087420000436","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2020/10/29 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"HISTORY & PHILOSOPHY OF SCIENCE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

摘要

当一些17世纪的学者把博物学作为自然哲学的基础时,他们继续争论如何写博物学,写什么,由谁写。本次展览参观了阿姆斯特丹两位医生Jan Swammerdam(1637-80)和Steven Blankaart(1650-1705)的工作室,探索了17世纪下半叶正在形成的自然史。斯瓦默丹和布兰卡特研究自然历史的方式截然不同,他们的目标不同,依靠的是处理标本和在纸上组织知识的不同传统,尤其是在个人观察可能被概括的方式方面。这些传统各不相同,从将个体解剖整理成历史,写植物和动物的一般和特殊历史,收集医学观察和应用归纳推理。Swammerdam确定了昆虫在其生命周期中所经历的基本变化,根据这些“一般特征”描述了四个目,并在具体的历史中展示了他的发现,举例说明了每个目的“一般规则”。布兰卡特依靠业余爱好者的集体观察来支持他作为一个医学专家的声誉,但这不应该导致任何一概而论。他们的工作提醒我们,他们可以使用各种各样的观察实践,以及他们将这些实践作为自己的目的。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Natural history in the physician's study: Jan Swammerdam (1637-1680), Steven Blankaart (1650-1705) and the 'paperwork' of observing insects.

While some seventeenth-century scholars promoted natural history as the basis of natural philosophy, they continued to debate how it should be written, about what and by whom. This look into the studios of two Amsterdam physicians, Jan Swammerdam (1637-80) and Steven Blankaart (1650-1705), explores natural history as a project in the making during the second half of the seventeenth century. Swammerdam and Blankaart approached natural history very differently, with different objectives, and relying on different traditions of handling specimens and organizing knowledge on paper, especially with regard to the way that individual observations might be generalized. These traditions varied from collating individual dissections into histories, writing both general and particular histories of plants and animals, collecting medical observations and applying inductive reasoning. Swammerdam identified the essential changes that insects underwent during their life cycle, described four orders based on these 'general characteristics' and presented his findings in specific histories that exemplified the 'general rule' of each order. Blankaart looked to the collective observations of amateurs to support his reputation as a man of medicine, but this was not supposed to lead to any kind of generalization. Their work alerts us to the variety of observational practices that were available to them, and with what purposes they made these their own.

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
CiteScore
0.80
自引率
12.50%
发文量
59
期刊介绍: This leading international journal publishes scholarly papers and review articles on all aspects of the history of science. History of science is interpreted widely to include medicine, technology and social studies of science. BJHS papers make important and lively contributions to scholarship and the journal has been an essential library resource for more than thirty years. It is also used extensively by historians and scholars in related fields. A substantial book review section is a central feature. There are four issues a year, comprising an annual volume of over 600 pages. Published for the British Society for the History of Science
期刊最新文献
How the Glaishers pictured snowflakes. Essay review: technopolitics, development and the residues of the South African state. Proxies and partial connections in an anthropologist's archive. Charting the hybrid architectural style of quantum theory. The politics of medical expertise and substance control: WHO consultants for addiction rehabilitation and pharmacy education in Thailand and India during the Cold War.
×
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
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 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 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1