Chapter Six
The chapter was entitled "The Circle of Willis" and it started out talking about William Harvey.William Harvey (the discoverer of the motion of blood and the origin of animals) had went into seclusion and was thought to be dead. He published "Disputations Touching the Generation of Animals" in 1651 and this work proclaimed life (from human to frog) begins as an egg even though he had never seen the eggs of a mammal. He thought that human organs came" into existence only gradually, taking shape over time." (119) Harvey argued that the soul was the only thing that could guide the development of the egg to its destined form. He said that mechanists "insulted the workmanship of God." (119) Harvey financed the library for the College of Physicians. Harvey's discovery of blood circulation was thought to be a "new foundation of medicine"(121) by Willis. Harvey's ideas about the circulation of blood started to take hold around the time that King Charles was beheaded.
Next, the chapter switched to discussing the life of Thomas Willis and the Oxford Circle. Willis's parents were killed during the Civil War and a main focus of his work was fever. He wrote the earliest clinical description of the flu (influenza).In the early 1650's, the Oxford Circle came under attack from the Puritans. They didn’t have a problem with the religion; just the fact that the circle appeared to be easily distracted from the divine mission at hand because they were having to much fun. The attacks on the Oxford Circle coming from Webster and Dell were countered by pamphlets written by Wilkins and Ward claiming that they were immersed in "the new science" and how microscopes would " uncover life's smallest, most important ingredients." (125)
In 1654, the Society of Friends (Quakers) emerged as this new religion that claimed that every person is their own priest and true religion comes from the " inner light that overwhelmed the soul and made it quake" [126] (not from theology). The most threatening foe for the circle was Thomas Hobbes. Hobbes theorized that the universe was made only of matter. Nothing survived after we died and reason was not " a candle of God". Hobbes stated that only one form of government would work: one with an absolute ruler to whom all natural liberties of man were given up to. His work entitled Leviathan caused a lot of drama amongst various groups of people because it did not stated who should be the absolute ruler.
The Oxford Circle was in need of a spokesperson and anchor in these troublesome times and they found one in Robert Boyle. Boyle loved alchemy and thought that it could become a religious mission. An appreciation of God's handiwork could be appreciated through an understanding of the natural world. Boyle and an American named George Starkey worked on medicine together and tried making a drug that supposed was a powerful healer (essence of copper). [136] Starkey was most intrigued with the mystery of what was the make up of matter.
Boyle questioned the principles of chemical reactions and set out to show that these principles couldn’t not be accounted for by Aristotle's qualities, four elements, nor his forms. (140) Boyle did not want to be put all faith into a system that could possibly fail to include the full nature of truth and he favored mechanical philosophy. Boyle was similar to Willis in that he had a huge passion for medicine and wished to find out the link between weather and the outbreak of disease. He viewed the body as a machine made of " fluid and those in organical motion." (144). Boyle believed that thought belonged to God, rational souls, and the angels. Anyone with an explanation to Boyle of how matter could reason was not only going to instruct him but surprise him as well.
Critique
This chapter was a slightly difficult read for me because it was not one that held my interest very well. It contained a lot of information about drama between the Oxford Circle and other religious sects/ exiled leaders, which got dull after while. Along with that, there was through, detailed descriptions of the various experiments and achievements of men like Thomas Hobbes and Robert Boyle. By reading these, I was able to add to the database what I learned about some people who were instrumental in the beginnings of neurobiology.
Hobbes, once an ally of the Oxford Circle, became one of their most threatening enemies. This was very interesting because he was once one their strong supporters. Boyle was a very interesting man to me because of his passion and tenacity. He was dedicated to his work and he challenged the normal way of thinking. That is very brave, in my opinion, because it is hard to go against your peers and predecessors to state what you feel is right when it is contrary to popular belief.
In William Harvey's work, “Disputations Touching the Generation of Animals", I was astonished by the theory he had about mammals. He thought that life (from frogs to humans) began as an egg (despite the factor he never saw the eggs of a mammal). He also thought that human organs came "into existence only gradually, taking shape over time." This was a very insightful observation because we, indeed, do start out as eggs and, in our mother's womb, our organs continue to develop during the nine months before birth and for sometime afterwards as well.
I disagreed with the statement that Boyle made about matter and reason. He stated that anyone who thought they could explain how matter could reason was not only going to instruct him but surprise him as well. He said that thought belonged to God. I think, we as human beings, have come a long way in our understanding of how the brain operates and why we think/act/say the things we do. Despite this, we still have a long way to go because we still can not possibly know everything there is to know about every single pathway, enzyme, reactions, etc.
Links on Information about Robert Boyle:
http://www.bbk.ac.uk/boyle/biog.html http://www.chemheritage.org/classroom/chemach/forerunners/boyle.html
Links on Information on William Harvey:
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/hobbes-moral/
http://www.accessexcellence.org/RC/AB/BC/William_Harvey.html
Links for Information on Thomas Hobbes:
http://oregonstate.edu/instruct/phl302/philosophers/hobbes.html
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/hobbes-moral/
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
9 comments:
Darcy states that the chapter was a difficult read for her because it did not hold her interest very well. I agree with this statement to a certain extent. Overall, I thought that the chapter was extensive but there were many points that I found to be of significance.
One appealing point was that the Oxford Experimental Philosophy Club carried out Harvey’s research of circulation as if he had never left” and “they posed questions instead of demonstrating conventional wisdom” by “measuring and drawing, hypothesizing and testing, and tackling questions that had been left unanswered (120). In this day and age, conventional wisdom can only allow one to understand so much. Only through experiments can a question be answered to its fullest degree.
Another interesting point was that Willis became “more obsessed by fever, keeping detailed records not just of individual cases but of overall patterns- of the ebb and flow of fevers through the year, of the different outcomes they had in different sorts of people” (120). These observations were the “earliest known clinical description of influenza” (120). As a biologist, I have found that almost every sickness, disease, and infection follows a pattern to some degree. These patterns help one to better understand the pathways of a particular illness better than trying to interpret the reasoning behind it in a single person.
I also found it interesting that Hobbes “had taken the mechanical philosophy to a logical extreme, doing away with everything beyond the world of matter” and in his book Leviathan, he “had essentially invented political science” (130). Even more fascinating, “every theory for governing a nation has had to confront Hobbes in one way or another” (130-131). Though I have never had a liking to political science, I find it amazing how a book about politics written in 1651 holds value still to this day. It only makes me appreciate the connection between the past and the present and how everything overlaps in one way or another.
Another point is one of “a fiery young American named George Starkey” (135). “Starkey kept careful notes of his procedures which were precise enough to let a reader reproduce them (136). This is such an important aspect of today’s technology. A scientist must be able to carry out the experiments of others following careful procedures that can be reproduced to yield the exact same results thereby eliminating false data. An even more remarkable point is that “he wrote a recipe for an alchemical compound known as philosophical mercury that was so detailed and explicit that historians later decided that a fraudulent alchemist like Starkey could not have authored it; giving credit instead to someone who had simply copied the recipe years later: Isaac Newton” (136-137).
I enjoyed this quote by Boyle: “Being born heir to a great family is but a glittering kind of slavery, is ever an impediment to the knowledge of many retired truths that cannot be attained without familiarity with meaner persons” (138). I took this quote to mean that there are many obstacles in life that can delay one from their goals. In this case, Boyle’s goal was “to turn alchemy into true natural philosophy” (138). Darcy said that she found Boyle to be a very interesting man who challenged the normal way of thinking. She followed by stating that it was very brave to go against ones peers and predecessors to state what one feels is right though being contrary to popular belief. I completely agree with this statement. Many people feel restrained to expressing their ideas in fear that they will be unaccepted by their peers. Many of the scientists described in Soul Made Flesh do state their beliefs strongly not being concerned of being praised or ridiculed by the public. This I truly admire because it takes a “real” person to do just that.
Lastly, I found it amazing that Harvey in his book Disputations Touching the Generation of Animals published in 1651, “explained that all life begins as eggs, that humans and deer come from eggs just as chickens and frogs do, despite the fact that he had never seen the microscopically small eggs of mammals” and that “the organs of the body come into existence only gradually, taking shape over time” (118-119). In accordance with Darcy, I too was astonished by his theory of mammals because he was, in fact, accurate in of these principles.
Some More Information on Robert Boyle:
http://www.woodrow.org/teachers/chemistry/institutes/1992/Boyle.html
Some Information on George Starkey:
http://galileo.rice.edu/Catalog/NewFiles/starkey.html
More Information on Thomas Hobbes:
http://www.iep.utm.edu/h/hobmoral.htm
Information on The Leviathan:
http://oregonstate.edu/instruct/phl302/texts/hobbes/leviathan-contents.html
I agree with both Darcy and Burd when they say that this chapter was quite extensive. However, there were some important points outlined in this chapter that pertains to the development of neurobiology. First of all, in researching additional information on this chapter, I stumbled upon what the “Circle of Willis” really is. Also referred to as the cerebral arterial circle, this anatomical component of the brain is responsible for supplying blood to the brain. It is rather interesting that the work of both Willis and Harvey are commemorated via an eponymous term to describe something we all have.
One of the most intriguing parts of this chapter for me was Harvey’s discovery that all organisms originate from an egg and that its further development into its distinct being was dictated by the soul. I agree with Darcy when she states that this discovery was quite insightful, especially considering that Harvey’s work opposes the long-standing idea that everyone and everything originates as a miniature pre-formed being, or a homunculus. It is not surprising that Harvey’s work fueled a firestorm from the “impassive, faithless sea of public opinion” (119). It was not until long after the publication of Mendel’s work with peas that the idea of a homunculus was eliminated. In going along with this notion, it is also through the expression of certain genes during gastrulation that an organism begins to take shape.
Another point that intrigued me was the Oxford Circle’s deliberate attempt to create a peaceful co-existence of the new science and religion (122, 123). I find it interesting that these men were royalists and devout believers of the Church. Unlike everyone else in England, they were capable of accepting the new views of science while simultaneously maintaining their faith. It was interesting that their ally, Hobbes, took a stance against their mission by stating that a nation’s ruler must dictate its religion (128, 129). Although I agree with Darcy that it was brave of Hobbes to oppose the views of his peers, I do not think he was necessarily countering popular belief. The Oxford Circle was the group that thought in unconventional terms with relation to the rest of society. In breaking away from that, it was Hobbes that conformed to societal beliefs. On another note, the onset of Boyle was interesting because he, as well as the other members of the Oxford Circle, exemplified the co-existence of God and science.
For more information on:
1) The Circle of Willis: http://www.strokecenter.org/education/ais_vessels/ais048.html
2) Homunculus and Gregor Mendel's work: http://biology.clc.uc.edu/courses/bio105/genetics.htm
3) Gastrulation: http://biology.kenyon.edu/courses/biol114/Chap14/Chapter_14.html
I agree with Darcy’s statement regarding Chapter Six being a rather bulky read. Nonetheless, I found the chapter to be intriguing in its own right. For example, I found Hobbes' notion of a “happy nation” only being possible under a ruler (a “moral god” as Hobbes stated) who controls the religion of the citizens to be quite disturbing. Hence, I was definitely surprised to find that a man who expressed such unsettling opinions played a pivotal role in inventing Political Science.
I too, admire Boyle for standing up for his beliefs/theories instead of allowing them to be downtrodden by the beliefs and ideas being expressed by those around him. It is people like Boyle who have helped science reach the level it is at today.
William Harvey’s theory regarding the source of life being an egg and his idea of organs taking shape gradually over time was very intriguing for me as well. Harvey very nearly hit the nail on the head. I also enjoyed the emphasis Chapter Six placed on experiments. In accordance to Burd’s statement, I too, believe that experiments are key to answering certain types of questions.
* Some of Thomas Hobbes’ work (such as Leviathan) as well as his biography:
< http://www.marxists.org/reference/subject/politics/hobbes/index.htm>
* Biography of William Harvey and explanations of his work:
< http://www.britannica.com/eb/topic-256397/article-9106277>
As with the other commenters, I too feel this was a lengthy read, but there were quite a few interesting points made. Some of which I agree with Darcy and some of which I do. I also agree with Darcy when she comments about the continued readings about the relgions aspect of this book and and I feel there is a continuum of the history lesson.
I feel that it is ironic that Hobbes was once an ally of the Oxford Circle. I find it more interesting that Hobbes' relion came out in him during this chapter, becomming quite radical. "God was simply the world's cause, and 'power of this kind necessarily elicits worship,'" (128). Here he states that even though God is the world's cause, in order for this to be carried out, the ruler (king or queen) must be in charge of making sure the religion is practiced.
I, too, found it interesting that Boyle proved to be the best fit leader for the Oxford Club. Boyle also found religion important in his work. "...he did not believe that atoms shut God out of the world," (137). His faith in God is probably what helped him go against the grain and work towards his beliefs in alchemy and such.
I feel that Harvey had an interesting theory pertaining to life having its beginnings as an egg. I feel that humans start out as eggs but once fertilized, grow into many cells and take the shape of a fetus leading to human form. I feel the "egg" stage is short-lived. I also agree with Harvey in regards to the organs taking shape over time. We continue to grow before, durig and clear up after until death.
I have to disagree with Darcy when she disagrees with Boyle in thought belonging to God. Attempting to refrain from a religious debate, I will faintly go into this. I feel that God gives humans free will and with that free will we have thought. I agree with Boyle. Our thought indirectly comes from God, even though we have come a long way in our understandings of the brain and its workings.
Robert Boyle:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Boyle
Article regarding mice grown with human ovaries/eggs:
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,296800,00.html
I thought that this was an interesting chapter, especially the section on Robert Boyle. His sister’s interest in alchemy led her to host talks at her house on “the reform of medicine, the new science, and religion.” I found it very interesting that a woman was involved in the learning and spreading the advancements of science at that time. Her involvement with alchemy seemed to influence her brother’s interest in the science. One of the things I liked about Boyle was that he was different from most of the members of the Oxford circle. He was not a royalist or a “broad-minded” Puritan, he was just Robert Boyle. And I agree with Darcy that he was a very interesting man because of his passion for science and religion. I am in agreement with Darcy who felt that it was very brave of Boyle to go against his peers and predecessors by voicing his opinion and theories that contradict popular belief. Conformity it not a thing of the past and exists especially in our culture. It is not always a bad thing since it can bring unity but at the same time it limits are individualistic development. I admire Boyle and all scientists and philosophers who don’t accept popular beliefs; therefore they question those beliefs and try to find their own answers.
When I first read about William Harvey’s theory about life coming from an egg was interesting since he never observe mammalian eggs, and it was an “insightful observation.” I was also surprised by his theory that organs taking shape gradually over time. Since, I took Harvey’s observation to mean that he thought the organs were evolving and developing, I wonder if his theory influenced Darwin’s theories of evolution by any chance.
Thought this was interesting:
http://www.bbk.ac.uk/boyle/boyle_papers/pathways.htm
I agree with Darcy that this chapter was slightly difficult to read, because the part when the drama between the Oxford Circle and other religious sects were discussed did not interest me much. And so, it got dull for me to read most of the time. However, some parts did interests me such as when William Harvey stated that life began as an egg even though “ he had never seen the microscopically small eggs of mammals.” I like the fact that he at least got the idea of what “the organs of the body come into existence only gradually taking shape over time.” Another part about Harvey that surprised me was that throughout his research and study of nature he ended up committing suicide with the use of laudanum. Surprisingly, he survived for years and continued his work. I admired his dedication in his search for truth and how everything works in life, even though I can image how stressful it was for him to think and brainstorm everything for himself with the only source he got was from what other scientists and philosophers have accomplished in their life.
I, too partly agree with Darcy on her statement about Boyle. That is, Boyle stated that thought belonged to God. Then again, his statement was partly confusing for me. But after reading what Jamawa said on her opinion about Boyle it made sense that “God gives humans free will and with that free will we have thought.” And so, “Our thought indirectly comes from God, even though we have come a long way in our understandings of the brain and its workings.”
Related Links:
Of the Local Movement of Animals
http://www.jstor.org.ezp.lndlibrary.org/view/00359149/ap020056/02a00020/0?searchUrl=http%3a//www.jstor.org/search/BasicResults%3fhp%3d25%26si%3d1%26gw%3djtx%26jtxsi%3d1%26jcpsi%3d1%26artsi%3d1%26Query%3dWilliam%2bharvey%2band%2bhis%2bidea%2bon%2begg%26wc%3don&frame=noframe¤tResult=00359149%2bap020056%2b02a00020%2b0%2cFEFF01&userID=907e094b@loyola.edu/01c054500e27741159cbc20f0&dpi=3&config=jstor
William Harvey and the Purpose of Circulation
http://www.jstor.org.ezp.lndlibrary.org/view/00211753/ap010110/01a00050/0?currentResult=00211753%2bap010110%2b01a00050%2b0%2cBFFF03&searchUrl=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.jstor.org%2Fsearch%2FBasicResults%3Fhp%3D25%26si%3D1%26gw%3Djtx%26jtxsi%3D1%26jcpsi%3D1%26artsi%3D1%26Query%3DWilliam%2Bharvey%2Band%2Bhis%2Bidea%2Bon%2Begg%26wc%3Don
Hobbes, Heresy, and the Historia Ecclesiastica
http://www.jstor.org.ezp.lndlibrary.org/view/00225037/dm980636/98p02032/0?currentResult=00225037%2bdm980636%2b98p02032%2b0%2c7E5C0C&searchUrl=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.jstor.org%2Fsearch%2FBasicResults%3Fhp%3D25%26si%3D1%26gw%3Djtx%26jtxsi%3D1%26jcpsi%3D1%26artsi%3D1%26Query%3DOxford%2BCircle%2Bversus%2Breligious%2Bsects%26wc%3Don
Boyle’s Conception of Nature
http://www.jstor.org.ezp.lndlibrary.org/view/00225037/dm980548/98p0286x/0?searchUrl=http%3a//www.jstor.org/search/BasicResults%3fhp%3d25%26si%3d1%26gw%3djtx%26jtxsi%3d1%26jcpsi%3d1%26artsi%3d1%26Query%3dRobert%2bBoyle%2bview%2bof%2breligion%26wc%3don&frame=noframe¤tResult=00225037%2bdm980548%2b98p0286x%2b0%2cFFFF1F&userID=907e094b@loyola.edu/01c054500e27741159cbc20f0&dpi=3&config=jstor
Finally someone tell the truth about this book not being a easy read yes the overall topic is interesting but the religious and political aspect becomes a bit overwhelming. Not to mention all the little intricate details of the experiments of each individual scientist. Don’t get me wrong the book is fascinating but so much information can become too much of a good thing.
I can understand my fellow bloggers’ point of it being hard to go against your peers, but sometimes one most thinks outside of the box and if being shunned is your punishment then individualism is your reward. Boyle shows this by providing an array chemical reactions and explaining they worked indebt. Due to this display of free thinking, it allowed dynamic growth in the science community.
Ok I can see why one would consider William Harvey’s work astonishing being that he never saw the eggs of a mammal. But think about it, the embryology of a frog is visible and he knows what any common midwife knows about human development. The equating of the two organisms’ growth and development show some creative thinking. However, the theory just seems to move back to philosophical approach of theorizing instead of the forward progression actualizing
Post a Comment