• R. Hooykaas
Part of the Boston Studies in the Philosophy of Science book series (BSPS, volume 205)


An open mind is generally recommended for the scientist. But an open mind is not the same as an empty mind: what will be brought out from facts by the mind that is confronted by them depends to a great extent upon what that mind already contained by way of experience, convention, education. The following chapters trace a number of influential ideas and methods that have been part of the mental furniture of scientists over the centuries.


Open Mind Natural Theology Phlogiston Theory Repetition Ofthe Direct Sensory Experience 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    D. Brewster, ‘Review of the Vestiges of Creation’, in: North Brit. Rev. Ill (1845), p.480.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    J.D. Forbes, The Danger of Superficial Knowledge (An Introductory Lecture to the Course on Natural Philosophy in the University of Edinburgh, delivered on the 1st and 2nd November 1848). London 1849.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
  4. 4.
    J.C. Sharp, P.G. Tait, A. Adams-Reilly, Life and Letters of James David Forbes. London 1873, p.193.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    It was generally believed that the barnacle (a cirripede: Lepas anatiferd) developed into a goose (either Branta bernicla or Branta leucopsis: species that were not clearly distinguished). The emperor Frederick II, who did not share this belief, sent an expedition to the north, which did not find eggs of these birds. He concluded that they must breed even farther to the north. Albertus Magnus (1193 - 1274) had seen the birds copulate and lay eggs in captivity. The Hollanders in 1696 found the ‘rotganzen’ in the far north, sitting on their eggs. The Utrecht professor A. Senguerd (Physicae Exercitationes, Amsterdam 1658), when dealing with the ‘Scottish geese’ declared the story a myth. Yet the myth lived on till the beginning of the 18th century among scholars of good reputation. The Netherlanders call the barnacle: ‘eendemossel’ (duck mussel). See E. Heron-Allen, Barnacles in Nature and Myth. London 1928.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    C.E. Raven, English Naturalists from Neckam to Ray. Cambridge 1947, pp. 130–131.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    R.G. Cant, The University of St Andrews. Edinburgh-London 1970, p.81.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    W. Chambers, Memoir of William and Robert Chambers, Edinburgh-London: W.& R.Chambers 12th ed. 1883, p.309.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Hebrews 11:1.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    D. Joào de Castro, Roteiro de Lisboa a Goa (circa 1538). Reprint in Vol.1 of Obras Complétas de D.Joäo de Castro. A.Cortesäo and Albuquerque ed., Coimbra 1968 – 1980; —, Roteiro de Goa a Diu (1540). Reprint in: Obras, Vol.II, iii. Cf. R. Hooykaas, Science in Manueline Stvle, Coimbra 1980, p.36.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Ptolemy, Almagest Bk.III, p.4: ’it would be more reasonable to stick to the hypothesis of eccentricity which is simpler and completely effected by one and not two movements.’Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 1999

Authors and Affiliations

  • R. Hooykaas
    • 1
  1. 1.UtrechtThe Netherlands

Personalised recommendations