Natural history in the physician's study
Jan Swammerdam (1637–1680), Steven Blankaart (1650–1705) and the ‘paperwork’ of observing insects
Datos Bibliográficos
| ID | 8395484 |
|---|---|
| Autores | SASKIA KLERK (Utrecht University, autor de correspondencia) |
| Año | 2020 |
| Volumen | 53 |
| Número | 4 |
| Páginas | 497-525 |
| Fecha de publicación | 2020-12-01 |
| Peer Reviewed | Sí |
| Open Access | Sí |
| Tipo | ARTICLE |
| Revista | The British Journal for the History of Science (JOURNAL) |
| Identificadores de la revista | ISSN: 0007-0874 • E-ISSN: 1474-001X |
| Editorial | Cambridge University Press (CUP) (PUBLISHER) |
| DOI | 10.1017/s0007087420000436 |
| OpenAlex | W3096733435 |
| Idioma | EN |
| Citas recibidas | 1 |
| Referencias citadas | 53 |
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
Archaeology · Epistemology · Generalization · Natural (archaeology · Natural history · Natural Philosophy · Order (exchange · Reputation · Social science · Sociology · Variety (cybernetics · Artificial Intelligence · Classics · Computer Science · Historical and Literary Studies · Historical Philosophy and Science · History · History of Science and Natural History · Medicine · Philosophy
Isaac Beeckman as a Reader of Francis Bacon's Sylva Sylvarum
The Science of Describing
Reading the Book of Nature in the Dutch Golden Age, 1575-1715
Cartesian Empiricisms
Historia
Monstrosities from the Sea. Taxonomy and tradition in Conrad Gessner's (1516-1565) discussion of cetaceans and sea-monsters
Jan Swammerdam's frogs
Sociable Knowledge
The Science of Describing
The Scholar in His Study
The Scholar in his Study. Ownership and experience in Renaissance Italy
The Rise of Note‐Taking in Early Modern Europe
Seeing and Writing
Ulisse Aldrovandi’s Pandechion Epistemonicon and the Use of Paper Technology in Renaissance Natural History
Francis Bacon
Sauvages’ Paperwork
Locke, Bacon and Natural History
Sharing Cases
Robert Boyle's 'Designe about Natural History
Pump and Circumstance
Bacon in Holland
Renaissance and Revolution
Marginalia, commonplaces, and correspondence
Notebooks, English Virtuosi, and Early Modern Science
Induction before Hume
Robert Boyle and the early Royal Society
Picturing the Book of Nature
Regius's Fundamenta Physices
Newton on the Beach
The House of Experiment in Seventeenth-Century England
Collecting Nature
| Obras citantes distintas | 1 |
|---|---|
| Citas por año | 0,2 |
| Intervalo de citas | 2021 - 2021 (1) |
| Velocidad de citación | historical |
| Altamente citado | No |
| Tipos de cita | Neutras: 1 |