Bates Don
Can Bull Med Hist. 2009;26(1):23-84. doi: 10.3138/cbmh.26.1.23.
Bates argues that understanding the historical relationship between medicine and science can help to clarify what science itself is, and exactly how it differs from other kinds of knowledge. In particular, it is directly relevant to the so-called "Needham question": why did the Scientific Revolution happen in western Europe, even though the East, particularly China, boasted greater achievements in technology? The question needs to be re-framed: it is not technology which made the Scientific Revolution, but mechanism. Medicine as a philosophical inquiry into life-processes, though often dismissed as impervious to the Scientific Revolution, was actually a driving force for mechanism. This is because the new mechanism of the 17th century was a fusion of revived ancient itomism with another ancient style of mechanistic thinking, which Bates called "organic mechanism" or "technism." The primary expression or organic mechanism was in living things-the focus of medical reflection. Medicine's role in developing these ideas of nature as soul in what Don Bates calls Phase I of the Western Intellectual Tradition (Antiquity to the Renaissance), had a crucial impact on the Scientific Revolution, or what Bates refers to as Phase II of the Western Intellectual Tradition. The centrality of medicine to the evolving concept of mechanism truly makes it "the soul of science."
贝茨认为,理解医学与科学之间的历史关系有助于阐明科学本身是什么,以及它与其他类型的知识究竟有何不同。特别是,这与所谓的“李约瑟问题”直接相关:为什么科学革命发生在西欧,尽管东方,尤其是中国,在技术方面取得了更大的成就?这个问题需要重新表述:引发科学革命的不是技术,而是机械论。医学作为对生命过程的哲学探究,尽管常常被认为对科学革命无动于衷,但实际上是机械论的驱动力。这是因为17世纪的新机械论是复兴的古代原子论与另一种古老的机械论思维方式的融合,贝茨将其称为“有机机械论”或“技术论”。有机机械论的主要表现形式存在于生物之中——这是医学思考的焦点。在唐·贝茨所称的西方知识传统第一阶段(古代到文艺复兴),医学在将自然观念发展为灵魂方面所起的作用,对科学革命,即贝茨所称的西方知识传统第二阶段,产生了至关重要的影响。医学在不断演变的机械论概念中的核心地位,确实使其成为“科学的灵魂”。