Наука как метод изучения механизма
Философы биологии при поиске объяснений в биологии пришли к заключению, что биология изучает механизмы. Эта идея интенсивно прорабатывалась последние лет двадцать. Интересно отметить, что заключение философов биологии похоже на то, что Ричард Докинз предлагал в книге Слепой часовщик в 1986 году, хотя его имя не упоминается. Тем не менее, я начну с ( Read more... )
Before we can appropriately contextualize the impact of organic chemistry on the
study of physiology in relation to the unfolding of the mechanicism-vitalism debate
during this period, it is first necessary to clarify a common misconception that prevails
still today among some scholars. Ramberg (2000) has termed this misconception the
‘Wöhler myth’ and relates to the historical significance of the laboratory synthesis of
urea (an organic substance) by German chemist Friedrich Wöhler (1800-1882) in 1828.
According to the myth, Wöhler’s synthesis signalled the end of the doctrine of
vitalism, as it showed that no vital forces of any kind were required for the generation
of organic matter. The reality, however, appears to have been rather different.
Historians such as J. H. Brooke (1968; 1971) have denied the premises of the myth’s
assumption and have conferred a primarily chemical meaning for Wöhler’s
accomplishment. Specifically, the artificial synthesis of urea had interesting
implications for the study of isomeric transformation, and was thus heralded as an
important milestone in the emerging field of structural organic chemistry. However,
Wöhler’s synthesis did not have a direct physiological bearing, nor, of course, did it
speak to the existence or nature of a vital force. In fact, most chemists of the period
believed that artificial syntheses of organic substances outside the living body were
possible, their actual likelihood depending only on the ability to successfully decipher
the chemical constitution of the substance to be synthesised, and in overcoming the
technical difficulties faced in the experimental process (see Brooke, 1968). It seems
that it has been the popularizers of science and not the chemists of the 1820s and 1830s
who have regarded organic synthesis as the ultimate deathblow of vitalism. Ramberg
(2000) has traced the origin of the Wöhler myth to a popular history of chemistry
monograph by Bernard Jaffe, published in 1931 (and still in print today).11 However, it
is likely that the myth originated much earlier. Brooke (1971, pp. 375-376) provides
some textual evidence which suggests that the idea that organic synthesis amounted to
a refutation of vitalism was first conjured up by the German mechanistic reductionists
of the late nineteenth century (to which I will turn to later). At any rate, what is clear is
that the artificial synthesis of urea did not signal the end of vitalism, in its somatic
form that was prevalent at the time, but simply confirm the earlier findings made by
Lavoisier regarding the correspondence between inorganic and organic chemical
substances.
Finally, Wöhler, who as I have already indicated would posthumously come to be
known, erroneously, as the exorcist of vitalism from biology, was himself, ironically,
equally committed to the existence of a vital force which in his view was responsible
for a number of physiological processes (see Brooke, 1968; 1971).
См. также
http://blog.rudnyi.ru/ru/2018/03/istoriya-vitalizma.html
Reply
Leave a comment