Steinke Hubert
1 Institut für Medizingeschichte, Universität Bern.
Ther Umsch. 2015 Jul;72(7):421-7. doi: 10.1024/0040-5930/a000695.
William Harvey's discovery of the circulation of the blood is often described as a product of the Scientific Revolution of the Seventeenth Century. Modern research has, however, shown thatHarvey followed the Aristotelian research tradition and thus tried to reveal the purpose of the organs through examination of various animals. His publication of 1628 has to be read as an argument of natural philosophy, or, more precisely, as a series of linked observations, experiments and philosophical reasonings from which the existence of circulation has to be deduced as a logical consequence. Harvey did not consider experiments as superior to philosophical reasoning nor intended he to create a new system of medicine. He believed in the vitality of the heart and the blood and rejected Francis Bacon's empirism and the mechanistic rationalism of Descartes. Harvey's contribution and originality lied less in his single observations and experiments but in the manner how he linked them with critical reasoning and how he accepted, presented and defended the ensuing radical findings.
威廉·哈维对血液循环的发现常被描述为17世纪科学革命的产物。然而,现代研究表明,哈维遵循亚里士多德的研究传统,因此试图通过对各种动物的检查来揭示器官的功能。他1628年的著作必须被视为自然哲学的一种论证,或者更确切地说,是一系列相互关联的观察、实验和哲学推理,从中必然能逻辑推导出血液循环的存在。哈维并不认为实验优于哲学推理,也无意创建一个新的医学体系。他相信心脏和血液的生命力,反对弗朗西斯·培根的经验主义和笛卡尔的机械理性主义。哈维的贡献和独创性不在于他的单个观察和实验,而在于他将这些观察和实验与批判性推理联系起来的方式,以及他接受、呈现和捍卫由此得出的激进发现的方式。