Abstract
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.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Preview
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
Notes
D. Brewster, ‘Review of the Vestiges of Creation’, in: North Brit. Rev. Ill (1845), p.480.
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.
Ibidem.
J.C. Sharp, P.G. Tait, A. Adams-Reilly, Life and Letters of James David Forbes. London 1873, p.193.
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.
C.E. Raven, English Naturalists from Neckam to Ray. Cambridge 1947, pp. 130–131.
R.G. Cant, The University of St Andrews. Edinburgh-London 1970, p.81.
W. Chambers, Memoir of William and Robert Chambers, Edinburgh-London: W.& R.Chambers 12th ed. 1883, p.309.
Hebrews 11:1.
D. Joà o de Castro, Roteiro de Lisboa a Goa (circa 1538). Reprint in Vol.1 of Obras Complétas de D.Joäo de Castro. A.Cortesäo and L.de 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.
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.’
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 1999 Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Hooykaas, R. (1999). Introduction. In: Fact, Faith and Fiction in the Development of Science. Boston Studies in the Philosophy of Science, vol 205. Springer, Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-015-9295-6_1
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-015-9295-6_1
Publisher Name: Springer, Dordrecht
Print ISBN: 978-90-481-5248-3
Online ISBN: 978-94-015-9295-6
eBook Packages: Springer Book Archive