Synopsis
Chapter five, entitled "Pisse-Prophets Among the Puritans," is about Thomas Willis and his encounters with many other scientists and philosophers and how they formed their own group called the Oxford Experimental Philosophy Club (OEPC), in order to come about with new ways of approaching science and medicine. It also recognizes their financial struggles in trying to come about and make a living.
The chapter starts with how Willis disappeared after fighting in the war and upon his return was looked at like a hero. During this time, Parliament and the Puritans were "…interested in bringing the corrupt souls of Oxford to God," (83). Many activities that the people in Great Britain took for granted were now banned such as games and even holly at Christmas. Some radicals of Parliament and the Puritans were going so far as to make England kingless and democratic. Charles had a hard time with this because he felt it wrong that he should negotiate his throne.
On Charles' way back from Scotland with his captors, he found that he was being asked by the sick ones passed on the way back to England to heal them. The Puritan's mocked this calling his touch superstition and nicknaming him Stroker. Because the army and Parliament were having issues, such as the soldiers wanting to get paid for their services, Charles used this to his advantage by seeing which one would offer him the best terms in regards to keeping his throne and such. Eventually the King was killed by beheading.
Upon Willis' return to England, he was welcomed by being handed a medical degree even though his education was of reading books, playing with experiments and talks with followers of William Harvey. In essence, the medical degree given to him was "…a token of gratitude," (85). During this time of chaos between the Puritans and royalists, Willis found himself struggling financially, but scientifically, this was a time for new ideas about the soul.
Willis, during this time, was straining to find patients, competing for them among other "doctors" who he considered quacks and mountebanks. During this time, Willis and his colleagues were considered and had to work as pisse-prophets. Though he struggled to find patients, his scientific work was not lacking and had plenty of time to set up laboratories and even shy away from Aristotle. He dove right into medical alchemy, finding inspiration in Joan Baptista van Helmont.
van Helmont had the thought that all matter began as water and used an experiment where he planted a willow tree and measuring its weight before and after it grew, thus, showing, in his eyes, how matter began as water. van Helmont named clouds as gas, isolated different gases and even saw the human body as many different individual souls that governed every organ. "The body's archei worked like internal alchemists, transmuting matter from one form to another," (88). van Helmont, with this notion, believed that the soul did not reside in the head and did not think reason was "…the noblest gift to humans," (89). van Helmont was later branded as a troublemaker using magic to pervert nature, though he thought his work was that of God. Because of the discoveries made by van Helmont, Galen's work was now under scrutiny from all scientists.
With this knowledge, Willis' work grew, naming substances he isolated from boiling blood and urine from his patients, water, earth, salt, sulfur and spirit, of course borrowing from Paracelsus. In this manner, Willis was looking beyond the body for answers as to what substances might be essential to it.
At this point, Parliament had taken its toll on Oxford, sweeping it clean, having its people taking an oath where they would submit to the authority of Parliament. Willis was untouched during this interrogation because he was seen as invisible and instead keeping busy with his alchemy and medicine.
John Wilkins was mentioned in this chapter because he was part of the OEPC. This man inquired when it came to mathematics and astronomy, saying the Earth was a planet like the rest that revolved around the sun. He later became known as virtuosi because of his appetite for the curiosities relating to science. Wilkins was the one who started OEPC and set no religious or political standard for membership. Christopher Wren was another scientist mentioned. His work consisted trigonometry, sundials and models of muscles. With theses two and Willis, the OEPC was born and their thinking behind science was that everything was within their reach and even attempted to invent a universal language for science.
William Petty and Thomas Hobbes were also mentioned. Petty for his gift to make nothing into something and Hobbes for his idea that the world was purely mechanical. Petty learned about the circulatory system and how to dissect a body. Petty was penniless like the rest of the scientists. Hobbes was interested in the brain, stating that it was put into a certain motion which then put the heart in a motion and so forth. He didn’t really care how the brain worked as long as it did. He just wanted understanding of how the individual parts worked. Hobbes' work also had similarities to Descartes though their one difference was in that Hobbes did away with the immaterial. Hobbes' was brought up because of his influence on Petty. This made Petty start to view the body as a machine as well in which he wanted to dismantle.
Willis was known to keep casebooks on the different medical encounters he had with afflictions and diseases such as tuberculosis and arthritis. His diagnosis's were still thought of as imbalances though with corruption brought to the four humors. Willis did not have problems with diagnosing those types of diseases but seemed to have problems with neurological and psychological disorders. He would fall back on Galen to understand the many disorders he came across. He also found out about addictions, such as caffeine and memory problems in the case of Anne Greene.
Anne Greene had delivered a baby that was dead upon birth. She hid the baby because it was dead. They baby was found and she was convicted of murder. Her sentence was death. After considered dead, she was put in a coffin and given to Willis and Petty to do an autopsy, upon which they found her actually alive. Upon her revival, she had no recollection as to what happened to her. Willis and Petty determined that memory was just another machine in the body that could falter or fail.
Petty eventually went on to make an exact map of Ireland and established policy for the country, which is still used by governments today and known as statistics and economic policy. Willis went on to make his own church which became very popular. "A decade later he would found the science of neurology," (115).
Critique
Like all the previous posts regarding Carl Zimmer's book, I too found this chapter interesting. At first I felt slow reading it beacuse of the history background given, but once it started in on the scientists and their discoveries and contributions, I was hooked. It amazes me at how many things were discovered and invented and experimented upon in such a short period of time.
In one part of the chapter, I noticed how van Helmont mentioned something about reason not being the noblest gift of humans. He stated how he thought reason was actually a disease which distracted the soul. He said it really wasn't anything special to humans giving examples of wolves cornering a dog in its favorite sleeping spot or bees counting. He gave this all to the notion of being rational. I want to disagree with how van Helmont thought. I feel that we are born with certain instincts. A wolf cornering a dog or a bee counting is all instinct that is learned. They learn from their parents just as a baby learns how to communicate with different crys whether it needs to be changed or fed. I do feel that humans have reason. If we did not have reason, how would scientists, such as van Helmont, think of the things they did in order to have a progression in the sciences?
I loved the fact that Wilkins, Wren and Willis with their other virtuosi came together and tried to establish that science was within their reach along with attempting to create a universal language for all scientists. This made me excited for them and science. I feel that their main goal wasn't in trying to solve all the problems but in trying to make things less complicated that way all scientists knew what they were talking about. It may not be the same universal language us scientists used today, but I think they were on to something by attempting.
To continue with my amazement, I was very intrigued by the wide variety of diseases that Willis had "disovered" in his casebooks. All the way from simple things such as arthritis and kidney stones, to more serious cases like tuberculosis and physcological/neurological problems. It was pretty neat how he would go back and forth between using Galen and not using Galen in order to try to find "cures" for the diseases. Sometimes Willis could not account for Galen's medicine with the symptoms he encountered (104) then other times he would fall right back on Galen to understand the disorders he encountered (107).
Based on the discoveries made by Willis and his colleagues, I am anxious to see what the upcoming chapters will talk about since in a decade, Willis will have discovered the science of neurology.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
9 comments:
Jamawa states that she felt that the chapter was a slow read because of the lengthy history background given. I completely agree with her. I felt that there was a gap in the middle of the chapter which seemed to take me a considerable amount of time to read through. As I read further into the chapter, the interesting discoveries and tales of the scientists began to take place and I, too, began engaged in the story.
I agree with Jamawa when she says that organisms (and humans) are born with instincts (such as maternal instincts). It is not reason that makes a calf stand on its feet at birth and know how to feed, but instincts. I also agree that humans have reason. We alone can draw conclusions and make inferences based on rational beliefs or motives. Does an organism have such reason? I do not believe so though some people do. I feel that animals observe the world and act or respond accordingly through their experiences.
I also agree with Jamawa when she says the main goal of the Oxford Experimental Philosophy Club was not to solve all the problems but to make things less complicated and condense their research into a universal language for other scientists. Today, most of the research has been constructed into a universal language such as mathematical equations, physical equations, as well as biological equations. This truly helps scientists all over the world.
I, too, was amazed at all the discoveries back then. The fact that Willis recorded his observations in those casebooks indicates that he was a true scientist in my eyes. I believe that the goal of science is to make observations first before any question can be considered.
Another point I would like to mention pertains to the King’s beheading. I feel that it was commendable when the King says, “I am the Martyr of the people,” and laid his head on the block (102). The statement I particularly took notice to was: “It was he, and not his judges, who gave the signal to the executioner to bring down the axe” (102). I found it very respectable and courageous for the King to initiate his beheading. It takes a strong person, a leader, to face the reality that the time of their death has come; though, most live in fear of this.
One small point I would also like to add is the fact that coffee was invented at such an early time (and came to Oxford in the 1600s). Such a wonderful creation!
One additional note: I cannot wait to see just how Willis “would find the science of neurology in his effort to heal it” (115). Now, I can see why the life of Willis usually introduces the chapters and closes the chapters though at times it seemed unclear.
Something I found interesting about the history of coffee:
http://www.koffeekorner.com/koffeehistory.htm
Some information on Christopher Wren as well as his beautiful masterpieces of architecture:
http://www.britainexpress.com/History/christopher_wren.htm
Chapter 5 plays a critical role in outlining the various scientific developments that came about at the end of the English Civil War. I believe it is quite appropriate that Zimmer juxtaposed these two events because I think the fall of King Charles I, “God’s lieutenant on Earth”, signified the gradual acceptance of the non-Aristotelian approach to science. Despite this, Willis—in his role as a physician—continued to vacillate between the newly developed methods of diagnosis and the traditional conventions of Galen. Considering the dual nature of his “medical education”, which comprised of both Aristotle and Paracelsus, I thought it was only natural for him to revert to the long-established beliefs when modern explanations could not account for the unknown. In terms of his own experimentations, I thought his novel approach to determining the fundamental compositions of the four humors were very reminiscent of Gassendi’s atomic theory.
Like Jamawa, I was intrigued by the fact that the Virtuosi attempted to formulate a universal language of science. This reminded me of author, Dan Brown’s, reference to the Illuminati’s attempt to universalize English—as opposed to Latin, the Church’s language—as the scientific vernacular in his book, Angels and Demons. In both cases, I think establishing such a dialect would have served as a catalyst to further divide religion and science.
On the other hand, I have to disagree with Jamawa’s assertion that reason is unique to humans. She states that all organisms are born with instincts that they learn. If certain abilities are learned, would it still be fair to call them instincts, which are intrinsic notions of the mind? To a certain degree, I concur with Van Helmont’s conclusion that reason is not special to human beings. Just because other organisms are not capable of expressing their thought processes through the same verbal mechanisms as humans does not necessarily mean that they do not have a sense of reason. Without it, how can we account for certain events in nature, such as a prowling lion knowing when to pounce on its prey? I do not believe such a thing could occur without some type of calculation.
One thing that I thought was interesting that Jamawa did not mention was Hobbes’ theory that “people were driven by…their appetites and their aversions” (98). I thought his idea was particularly interesting because it referred to everyone’s individual perceptions; they moved further or closer to evil or good, respectively, based on the definitions of the two notions that they have developed for themselves.
Interesting Links:
1) Hobbes' beliefs about human action: http://www.philosophypages.com/hy/3x.htm
2) David Hume's beliefs about an animal's ability to reason: http://www.ourcivilisation.com/smartboard/shop/humed/enquiry/chap9.htm
3) Virtuosi and the universal language: http://www.jstor.org/view/00211753/ap010067/01a00070/0
I enjoyed Chapter Five a lot because it gave me more insight into the beginnings of neurobiology. I, being someone who is just starting to have a healthy appreciation for psychology and neurobiology (through experiencing first hand what it had to offer), was thrilled to learn more about who certain diseases were discovered and the methods used to find the cures. This chapter discussed arthritis, tuberculosis, kidney stones, and many other interesting things. Learning is a huge passion for me so, when dealing with anything that will increase my knowledge basis, I am up for the challenge.
After reading Chapter Five, I am starting to get a deeper understanding of why certain things were arranged the way they were. Details about Willis are expressed at the beginning and end of every chapter so far and I couldn't whole-heartedly understand why until now. He is a very important part of the history of neurobiology since he is the "founder of neurology" and now the reading, to me, flow in a perfect sequence.
I concurred with JAMAWA on her sentiments about the excellent ideology in the starting of the Oxford, Experimental Philosophy Club (OEPC) and with Burd when she discussed the bravery of King Charles in initiating his own beheading but I disagreed when it came to JAMAWA's statement about how she disagreed with van Helmont's theory that "reason wasn't being the noblest gift of humans." I am siding with Ynaling on thinking that humans are not the only species that have reason. Instincts are NOT learned; they are something you naturally have and are born with. Through experiences, we sharpen these skills and talents but we are improving on what we already have. When lions hunt, birds migrate to the same place every winter, and bears know when to go into hibernation, these are just a few incidences of instinct. They know when to do these certain tasks and their timing is precise. This REASONING is unique to their situations/ lifestyle/ environment. Human reasoning is unique to humans and animals have a reasoning of their own but reasoning, I believe, are for all.
To say they do not reason all because they do not reason like we do doesn’t "hold ground" for me because who made us the standard on what reasoning is? We, as human beings, do not always reason in the same way across the board nor do we think and believe all the same thing so to even insist on there being a human standard of reasoning is silly in itself. I doubt we could all agree on one criterion. This being said, since we can not prove they can not reason, we shouldn’t assume they can NOR cant but leave it open to possibilities.
Here's a link to more information about van Helmont:
http://scienceworld.wolfram.com/biography/Helmont.html
http://scienceworld.wolfram.com/biography/Helmont.html
Article on Human and Animal Reasoning:
http://ezinearticles.com/?Human-and-Animal-Reasoning-and-Similarities&id=153396
What jumped out at me from Chapter 5 was that science and religion were slowly been unraveled into separate fields. I understand that many of the great discoveries in the past have been influenced by religion, however, I believe it is important to not get the two disciplines intertwined so deeply that our perspective becomes slightly hazy. Hence, reading about how new ideas, that were not solely based on theology, were starting to influence scientists was very interesting and thought-provoking for me.
I agree with Jamawa regarding the relatively slow pace of Chapter 5 (at least in the beginning). I had to re-read several paragraphs over again as I at times lost track of what was going on. Nonetheless, I once again commend Zimmer for introducing us to the political climate in order to provide us with a better backdrop to the scientists and their discoveries during a specific period. Similar to Jamawa, I was jolted by van Helmont’s declaration that humans should not put our ability to reason on a pedestal as it is nothing very special. I too, disagree with van Helmont to an extent. I believe that humans (similar to cats, geese etc.) are born with certain instincts. These instincts, in human beings, may provide a foundation for the development of reason, however, I think it is important to keep in mind that experience has a crucial role in our ability to do most things, including reason. Hence, as jamawa stated, wolves and other animals learn certain instincts. However, I also believe that humans learn how to reason - or at least our experiences play a role in honing out ability to reason.
I agree with Jamawa when it comes to admiring Willis, Wren and Wilkins for trying to “create a universal language for all scientists,” thereby attempting to make science slightly more easier to understand and work with.
In addition to the number of diseases that Jamawa mentioned, I also found it intriguing that Willis was responsible for noting the “earliest known case-study of clinical manic-depressive psychosis” (105). It was great (and I admit slightly refreshing :) to read about a milestone being reached in the field of psychology in addition to the many biological breakthroughs already mentioned in previous chapters.
* A brief biography of Thomas Willis:
http://www.whonamedit.com/doctor.cfm/336.html>
* A short excerpt on Willis’ Oxford Lectures.
http://www.jstor.org/view/00029556/ap050369/05a00150/0
Initially, when reading the chapter, I didn’t know what to expect. All the other chapters had titles dealing with different organs, or questionable entities at the time. But what can one gather from “Pisse-Prophets Among the Puritans?” It was unthinkable to have a
'prophet'
one who is chosen to speak for God, and ‘urine’ in the same sentence, let alone as a hyphenated word. When I read that Thomas Willis, who was destined to great discoveries, had to spend his fair share of time working as a “pisse-prophet” (86), it lead me to think that things have not changed much (metaphorically) from the 1600s. Resident doctors have to encounter a lot before completing their residency. They are given more work than experienced doctors normally deal with, and while the doctors go home, many residents work round the clock often lacking sleep. Albeit, I am pretty sure that most residents don’t compare themselves to the early days of Thomas Willis.
In the case of the presence of reason in humans, I agree with ‘Jamawa’ in that without it, we wouldn’t be as far ahead in science or any other field, just as Joan Baptista van Helmont or even Thomas Hobbs who discredited ‘reason’ based on his own reasoning (98). As far instinct is concerned, ‘Darcy’ has beaten me to the punch line. I agree with her when she points out that instinct is not learned. ‘Jamawa’ stated that “…a wolf cornering a dog or a bee counting is all instinct that is learned.” As she goes on to state, these are natural behaviors that are learned by observing parents and members of the older generation in the pack. If this was indeed instinct, then if the wolf or bee had been isolated, since birth, in captivity, the same behavior would continue to occur. They would not have to be learned from the parent. An instinct, in keeping with the use of animals as examples, can be observed wombat cubs as they stay between the feet of their human caretakers (in captivity), with no exposure to adult wombats. The cubs did not learn from anyone, yet followed through with the behavior.
I share ‘Jamawa’s’ appreciation for the Oxford Experimental Philosophy Club started by the virtuosi John Wilkins, Thomas Willis, and Christopher Wren. However, I do not believe that was their main goal. To me, it was one among other endeavors in different fields of science. Zimmer depicted this group of men not as a team focused on revolutionizing the scientific world with a universal language, but as an intellectual group ready to uncover all that puzzled them. They grew and dabbled with exotic plants and their medicinal uses; they fiddled with machinery and “counterfeit rainbows;” they redesigned scopes or lenses in the quest to gain new understanding of anywhere from the hairy legs of flies, to the surface of the moon. Of the entire paragraph, I felt as though Zimmer simply touched on the attempt of the virtuosi to create a universal scientific language, devoting only one sentence to it, while spending more time mentioning their other aforementioned activities.
In case the hyperlinks do not work, visit the following websites for more information on –
The dictionary definition of Prophet
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/prophet
The dictionary definition of Instinct
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/instinct
Oxford Experimental Philosophy Club https://eee.uci.edu/clients/bjbecker/NatureandArtifice/lecture12.html
I agree with Jamawa and Burd that this was a lengthy but interesting chapter. To understand how and why Willis came to formulate the science of neurology, his environment and the events that occurred at that time need to be examined in order to observe how they influenced his thinking. I am learning a lot about how science developed and those who contributed to its development. Many of the scientists mentioned in this chapter I have never heard of, especially William Petty and Thomas Hobbes. I was just surprised that Hobbes was only concerned with how the individual parts of the brain worked and not how the brain functioned as a whole. It’s at times frustrating for me when I read how people underestimated the function and purpose of the brain. I am looking forward to how the brain’s function in science becomes understood and revered.
Jamawa is right with not agreeing with van Helmont’s opinion that reason is not the noblest gift of humans. I don’t agree with him either. How can reason be considered a “corrupting parasite” when it is reason that allows us to question, to disprove, and to understand? Our ability to reason is one of the most important things that differentiates us from other animals and makes us unique. Other animals might have the ability to reason but not to the highest degree as humans. As humans we are able to use are reason to benefit the good of all living things, however, at times we fail to do so.
Finally, the most fascinating part of the chapter for me was the story of Anne Greene. Her name sounded familiar when I read this section but I was not familiar with the story. But two amazing things happened to Anne Greene. First, she was spared from death. And secondly, she was spared from remembering how she was technically killed. It is amazing that she does not remember that frightening time and I personally would not want to remember it either. Memory was considered to “falter and fail” like all the other parts of the body, and in this case Greene was probably fortunate that it did.
Here is a figure of Anne Greene's death and resusitation, which I found interesting: http://www.nature.com/nrn/journal/v5/n4/fig_tab/nrn1369_F4.html
It is probably too early to post this article but it talked about his early days which we have read about so far, and it shows some cool pictures! http://www.nature.com/nrn/journal/v5/n4/full/nrn1369.html
I enjoyed reading Chapter Five even though it was a slow read for me. I had to go back a couple of times to fully understand the history that was given. However, as I read further in the story, it was interesting what several scientists had discovered and that they were very dedicated in their works. For instance, I thought it was remarkable to know what Willis have discovered during his time. That is, he encountered a wide variety of serious cases such as arthritis, kidney stones, tuberculosis, etc.
I also agree with Jamawa that it was amazing to think of what the three scientists have created, that is, Wilkins, Wren and Willis came together to come up with a universal language for all scientists, so that understanding the language behind science would be easier for others to understand and appreciate.
I, too agree with everyone on what Jamawa have said about humans are born with instincts as well not just animals. It is not reason that makes a human baby roll around (turn) to try to get itself up and know how to open its mouth when food is being given. It would be the same way with animal instincts too except some young animals hunt for their own food to survive without their mother’s help. I also agree with Jamawa and Darcy when they wrote about what human reasoning is, that is, humans have unique ways of reasoning out their situations in everyday life, whereas animals may not. And so, animals have their own reasoning in which humans are still investigating the mystery behind that. I find it interesting how and why animals act that way they do. Though, I do know that some animals are naturally born on how they take action in their environment.
Related links:
The Evolution of Values from Instincts.
http://www.jstor.org/view/00318108/di980969/98p0307e/0?searchUrl=http%3a//www.jstor.org/search/BasicResults%3fhp%3d25%26si%3d1%26gw%3djtx%26jtxsi%3d1%26jcpsi%3d1%26artsi%3d1%26Query%3dhuman%2binstincts%2band%2banimal%2binstincts%26wc%3don&frame=noframe¤tResult=00318108%2bdi980969%2b98p0307e%2b0%2cFFFF0F&userID=435c1661@loyola.edu/01cce4405dc8d31157919cbfb&dpi=3&config=jstor
V. Consciousness and Biological Evolution. (II.)
http://www.jstor.org/view/00264423/di984157/98p0212m/0?searchUrl=http%3a//www.jstor.org/search/BasicResults%3fhp%3d25%26si%3d1%26gw%3djtx%26jtxsi%3d1%26jcpsi%3d1%26artsi%3d1%26Query%3dhuman%2binstincts%26wc%3don&frame=noframe¤tResult=00264423%2bdi984157%2b98p0212m%2b0%2cFE62&userID=435c1661@loyola.edu/01cce4405dc8d31157919cbfb&dpi=3&config=jstor
John Wilkins’ Universal Language
http://www.jstor.org/view/00211753/ap010067/01a00070/0?currentResult=00211753%2bap010067%2b01a00070%2b0%2cFF1F&searchUrl=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.jstor.org%2Fsearch%2FBasicResults%3Fhp%3D25%26si%3D1%26gw%3Djtx%26jtxsi%3D1%26jcpsi%3D1%26artsi%3D1%26Query%3Djohn%2BWilkins%2Band%2Bhis%2Bworks%26wc%3Don
Interesting post and discussion! Regarding the question of whether or not non-human animals possess any capacity to reason, an interesting psychology experiment was done that some of you may be familiar with. The question of whether animals are self-aware was tested by first allowing different species of animals to look at themselves in a mirror. Dogs, cats, monkeys, and chimpanzees all stared at their mirror images. However, when researchers placed a red dot on their faces, only the chimpanzees looked in the mirror, saw the red dot, and then removed the dot from their face! This implies that chimps certainly have the ability to reason at a high level (dogs and cats don't, at least not by this test). Of course, chimps don't build toaster ovens and jet airplanes, suggesting that their capacity to reason is not nearly as developed as it is in humans. However, perhaps the chimps feel no need to invent things that they feel they simply don't need?
Yes, I have to agree with Jamawa and say that this chapter is very informative. I have never in my life heard of “Pisse-Prophet” but when you think about it, it makes sense. Diagnosing one sickness from the observation of their urine, yea the name fits. There is a feeling of camaraderie amongst the scientists and it is not only displayed by the forming of the Oxford Experimental Philosophy Club, but by the authors’ style in making us aware of the oppression that the scientists are enduring. This has forced the researchers to implement new strategies by using unified collaboration of alternative thinking and scientific approaches.
However, the amazement for me is not just the discoveries but in the rationale the lead to such great findings. The discovery of the disease like kidney stones and arthritis is not a simplistic task. Especially when considering the instruments and protocol that they had access to. Keeping in mind that they are inventing the tools they needed as they work. Implying that it was a simplistic undermines their work, when this revelation only came to a select few of people.
Post a Comment