Advertisement

What Does It Mean to Be an Empiricist in Medicine? Baglivi’s De praxi medica (1696)

Chapter
Part of the Boston Studies in the Philosophy and History of Science book series (BSPS, volume 331)

Abstract

How are we to connect the mechanist methodology used by Baglivi in his physiological treatises with the apparently strict empiricism that he promotes in his therapeutic work entitled Practice of Physick, reduc’d to the Ancient Way of Observations? In order to answer this question, we examine the methodological implications of the “history of diseases” that Baglivi promotes by using Bacon’s recommendations in the Novum organum. Then, we compare this result with the place that historians generally gave to Baglivi in the medical context of that time: the place of a dogmatic and “iatromechanist” physician who was far from practical and therapeutic concerns. This confrontation allows us first to apprehend the polemical origin of the so-called “iatromechanism” as a historiographical label, and second, to question the preeminence of the role of observations in the shaping of the classical distinction between “rational” physicians and “empirical” ones. When Early Modern physicians use the dichotomy between “empirical” and “rationalist” in order to discredit what they perceive as oversimplification or dogmatism, there is most often a third group at stake: a group which is depicted as the providential and intelligent solution to sectarianism. For Baglivi, this third group would be an “Empirick rational sect.” The distinction between a medicina prima and a medicina secunda allows us to understand such an apparently paradoxical category.

Keywords

Iatromechanism Solidism Methodism History of diseases Induction Francis Bacon Giorgio Baglivi Georges Canguilhem Mirko D. Grmek Thomas Sydenham 

Bibliography

Other Primary Literature

  1. Bacon, Francis. 1961–3. The works of Francis Bacon, facsimile-reprint of the ed. Spedding, Ellis und Heath, London 1857–1874. Stuttgart-Bad Cannstatt: Friedrich Frommann.Google Scholar
  2. Baglivi, Giorgio. 1704a. The practice of physick, reduc’d to the ancient way of observations. London: A. Bell.Google Scholar
  3. ———. 1704b. Opera omnia medico-practica, et anatomica […]. Lyon: Anisson & J. Posuel.Google Scholar
  4. ———. 1710. Opera omnia medico-practica et anatomica. Lyon: Anisson & J. Posuel.Google Scholar
  5. ———. 1761. Opera omnia medico-practica et anatomica, editio inter quamplurimas emendatissima. Venice: G. Girardi.Google Scholar
  6. ———. 1851. De l’accroissement de la médecine pratique. Trans. Jules Boucher. Paris: Labé.Google Scholar
  7. Bordeu, Théophile de. 1754. Crise. In Encyclopédie ou Dictionnaire raisonné des sciences, des arts et des métiers…, 471–489. Paris: Briasson, IV.Google Scholar
  8. Boucher, Jules. 1851. Introduction sur l’influence du baconisme en médecine. In Baglivi, De l’accroissement de la médecine pratique (De praxi medica). Trans. J.Boucher. Paris: Labé, i–lxix.Google Scholar
  9. Conring, Hermann. 1687. In universam artem medicam. Helmstedt: Georg Wolfgang Hamm.Google Scholar
  10. Glisson, Francis. 1677. Tractatus de ventriculo et intestinis cui praemittitur alius, de partibus continentibus in genete, [est] in specie de iis abdominis. Amsterdam: Jacobus Junior.Google Scholar
  11. Jaucourt, Louis de. 1755. Empirisme. In Encyclopédie ou Dictionnaire raisonné des sciences, des arts et des métiers…, 587–588. Paris: Briasson, V.Google Scholar
  12. Kerckring, Theodor. 1670. Spicilegium anatomicum, continens observationum anatomicarum rariorum centuriam unam: nec non osteogeniam foetuum, in qua quid cuique ossiculo singulis accedat mensibus, quidve decedat et in eo per varia immutetur tempora, accuratissimè oculis subjicitur. Amsterdam: Andreas Frisi.Google Scholar
  13. Leibniz, Gottfried Wilhelm. 1768. Opera Omnia, ed. Ludovique Dutens. Geneva: Frères De Tournes.Google Scholar
  14. Michelotti, Pietro Antonio. 1721. De separatione fluidorum in corpore animali: dissertatio physico-mechanico-medica. Venice: Pinellorum aere.Google Scholar
  15. Salomon, Max. 1889. Giorgio Baglivi und seine Zeit. Ein Beitrag zur Geschichte der Medicin im 17. Jahrhundert. Berlin: August Hirschwald.Google Scholar
  16. Sbaraglia, Gian Girolamo. 1698. De recentiorum medicorum studio dissertatio epistolaris ad Amicum. In Opera posthuma, ed. Marcello Malpighi. Amsterdam: Donatus.Google Scholar
  17. Steno, Nicholas (Stensen, Niels). 1667. Elementorum myologiae specimen seu musculi descriptio geometrica: cui accedunt canis Carchariae dissectum caput, et dissectus piscis ex canum genere. Florence: ex typographia sub signo stellae.Google Scholar
  18. ———. 1968. The prodromus of Nicolaus Steno’s dissertation concerning a solid body enclosed by process of nature within a solid, Trans. of De solido intra solidum naturaliter contento (1669) by John G. Winter. New York: Macmillan.Google Scholar
  19. Swammerdam, Jan. 1737–1738. “Proefnemingen van de particuliere beweeging der Spieren in de Kikvorsch”, in: Bybel der Natuure-Biblia Naturae, ed. by Herman Boerhaave. Leyden: Van der Aa, 835-860.Google Scholar
  20. Sydenham, Thomas. 1676. Observationes medicae morborum acutorum historiam et curationem. London: G. Kettilby.Google Scholar
  21. ———. 1683. Tractatus de podagra et Hydrope. London: G. Kettilby.Google Scholar

Secondary Literature

  1. Andrault, Raphaële. 2013. Définir le vitalisme. Lectures de Claude Bernard. In Claude Bernard. La méthode de la physiologie, ed. F. Duchesneau, J.-J. Kupiec, and M. Morange, 133–155. Paris: Éditions Rue d’Ulm.Google Scholar
  2. Canguilhem, Georges. 1970. Du singulier et de la singularité en épistémologie biologique. In Études d’histoire et de philosophie des sciences, 211–225. Paris: Vrin.Google Scholar
  3. ———. 1992. Machine et organisme (1965). In La connaissance de la vie, 101–157. Paris: Vrin.Google Scholar
  4. Cunningham, Andrew. 1989. Thomas Sydenham: Epidemics, Experiment, and the ‘Good old causes’. In The medical revolution in the seventeenth century, ed. Roger French and Andrew Wear, 164–190. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Daremberg, Charles. 1870. Histoire des sciences médicales. Paris: Baillière.Google Scholar
  6. Duchesneau, François. 1973. L’empirisme de Locke. The Hague: Martinus Nijhoff.Google Scholar
  7. ———. 1982a. La physiologie des Lumières. Empiricisme, modèles et théories. The Hague/Boston/London: Martinus Nijhoff.Google Scholar
  8. Grmek, Mirko D. 1970. Baglivi. In Dictionary of scientific biography, ed. Charles C. Gillispie, vol. 1, 391–392. New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons.Google Scholar
  9. Jiménez Girona, José. 1955. La medicina de Baglivi. Madrid: Consejo Superior de Investigaciones Científicas.Google Scholar
  10. Kardel, Troels, et al., eds. 1994. Steno on muscles. Philadelphia: American Philosophical Society. (Transactions of the American Philosophical Society. New Series 84/1).Google Scholar
  11. King, Lester S. 1970. Empiricism and rationalism in the works of Thomas Sydenham. Bulletin of the history of medicine 44 (1): 1–11.Google Scholar
  12. Martin, Julian. 1990. Sauvages’ nosology. Medical enlightenment in Montpellier. In The medical enlightenment of the eighteenth century, ed. Andrew Cunningham and Roger French, 111–137. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  13. Roux, Sophie. 2013. Was there a Cartesian experimentalism in 1660s France? In Cartesian empiricism, ed. Mihnea Dobre and Tammy Nyden, 47–88. Dordrecht: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.ENS LyonCNRSLyonFrance

Personalised recommendations