a history of science-1-第30节

按键盘上方向键 ← 或 → 可快速上下翻页，按键盘上的 Enter 键可回到本书目录页，按键盘上方向键 ↑ 可回到本页顶部！
————未阅读完？加入书签已便下次继续阅读！


　the　purpose　of　science　let　words　have　a　specific　meaning；　nor　must　we　let　a　mere　word…jugglery　blind　us　to　the　evidence　of　facts。　That　was　the　rock　on　which　Greek　science　foundered；　it　is　the　rock　which　the　modern　helmsman　sometimes　finds　it　difficult　to　avoid。　And　if　we　mistake　not；　this　case　of　the　atom　of　Democritus　is　precisely　a　case　in　point。　Because　Democritus　said　that　his　atoms　did　not　differ　in　quality；　the　modern　philosopher　has　seen　in　his　theory　the　essentials　of　monism；　has　discovered　in　it　not　merely　a　forecast　of　the　chemistry　of　the　nineteenth　century；　but　a　forecast　of　the　hypothetical　chemistry　of　the　future。　And；　on　the　other　hand；　because　Anaxagoras　predicted　a　different　quality　for　his　primordial　elements；　the　philosopher　of　our　day　has　discredited　the　primordial　element　of　Anaxagoras。　Yet　if　our　analysis　does　not　lead　us　astray；　the　theory　of　Democritus　was　not　truly　monistic；　his　indestructible　atoms；　differing　from　one　another　in　size　and　shape；　utterly　incapable　of　being　changed　from　the　form　which　they　had　maintained　from　the　beginning；　were　in　reality　as　truly　and　primordially　different　as　are　the　primordial　elements　of　Anaxagoras。　In　other　words；　the　atom　of　Democritus　is　nothing　less　than　the　primordial　seed　of　Anaxagoras；　a　little　more　tangibly　visualized　and　given　a　distinctive　name。　Anaxagoras　explicitly　conceived　his　elements　as　invisibly　small；　as　infinite　in　number；　and　as　made　up　of　an　indefinite　number　of　kindsone　for　each　distinctive　substance　in　the　world。　But　precisely　the　same　postulates　are　made　of　the　atom　of　Democritus。　These　also　are　invisibly　small；　these　also　are　infinite　in　number；　these　also　are　made　up　of　an　indefinite　number　of　kinds；　corresponding　with　the　observed　difference　of　substances　in　the　world。　〃Primitive　seeds；〃　or　〃atoms；〃　were　alike　conceived　to　be　primordial；　un…　changeable；　and　indestructible。　Wherein　then　lies　the　difference？　We　answer；　chiefly　in　a　name；　almost　solely　in　the　fact　that　Anaxagoras　did　not　attempt　to　postulate　the　physical　properties　of　the　elements　beyond　stating　that　each　has　a　distinctive　personality；　while　Democritus　did　attempt　to　postulate　these　properties。　He；　too；　admitted　that　each　kind　of　element　has　its　distinctive　personality；　and　he　attempted　to　visualize　and　describe　the　characteristics　of　the　personality。　Thus　while　Anaxagoras　tells　us　nothing　of　his　elements　except　that　they　differ　from　one　another；　Democritus　postulates　a　difference　in　size；　imagines　some　elements　as　heavier　and　some　as　lighter；　and　conceives　even　that　the　elements　may　be　provided　with　projecting　hooks；　with　the　aid　of　which　they　link　themselves　one　with　another。　No　one　to…day　takes　these　crude　visualizings　seriously　as　to　their　details。　The　sole　element　of　truth　which　these　dreamings　contain；　as　distinguishing　them　from　the　dreamings　of　Anaxagoras；　is　in　the　conception　that　the　various　atoms　differ　in　size　and　weight。　Here；　indeed；　is　a　vague　fore…shadowing　of　that　chemistry　of　form　which　began　to　come　into　prominence　towards　the　close　of　the　nineteenth　century。　To　have　forecast　even　dimly　this　newest　phase　of　chemical　knowledge；　across　the　abyss　of　centuries；　is　indeed　a　feat　to　put　Democritus　in　the　front　rank　of　thinkers。　But　this　estimate　should　not　blind　us　to　the　fact　that　the　pre…vision　of　Democritus　was　but　a　slight　elaboration　of　a　theory　which　had　its　origin　with　another　thinker。　The　association　between　Anaxagoras　and　Democritus　cannot　be　directly　traced；　but　it　is　an　association　which　the　historian　of　ideas　should　never　for　a　moment　forget。　If　we　are　not　to　be　misled　by　mere　word…jugglery；　we　shall　recognize　the　founder　of　the　atomic　theory　of　matter　in　Anaxagoras；　its　expositors　along　slightly　different　lines　in　Leucippus　and　Democritus；　its　re…discoverer　of　the　nineteenth　century　in　Dalton。　All　in　all；　then；　just　as　Anaxagoras　preceded　Democritus　in　time；　so　must　he　take　precedence　over　him　also　as　an　inductive　thinker；　who　carried　the　use　of　the　scientific　imagination　to　its　farthest　reach。　An　analysis　of　the　theories　of　the　two　men　leads　to　somewhat　the　same　conclusion　that　might　be　reached　from　a　comparison　of　their　lives。　Anaxagoras　was　a　sceptical；　experimental　scientist；　gifted　also　with　the　prophetic　imagination。　He　reasoned　always　from　the　particular　to　the　general；　after　the　manner　of　true　induction；　and　he　scarcely　took　a　step　beyond　the　confines　of　secure　induction。　True　scientist　that　he　was；　he　could　content　himself　with　postulating　different　qualities　for　his　elements；　without　pretending　to　know　how　these　qualities　could　be　defined。　His　elements　were　by　hypothesis　invisible；　hence　he　would　not　attempt　to　visualize　them。　Democritus；　on　the　other　hand；　refused　to　recognize　this　barrier。　Where　he　could　not　know；　he　still　did　not　hesitate　to　guess。　Just　as　he　conceived　his　atom　of　a　definite　form　with　a　definite　structure；　even　so　he　conceived　that　the　atmosphere　about　him　was　full　of　invisible　spirits；　he　accepted　the　current　superstitions　of　his　time。　Like　the　average　Greeks　of　his　day；　he　even　believed　in　such　omens　as　those　furnished　by　inspecting　the　entrails　of　a　fowl。　These　chance　bits　of　biography　are　weather…　vanes　of　the　mind　of　Democritus。　They　tend　to　substantiate　our　conviction　that　Democritus　must　rank　below　Anaxagoras　as　a　devotee　of　pure　science。　But；　after　all；　such　comparisons　and　estimates　as　this　are　utterly　futile。　The　essential　fact　for　us　is　that　here；　in　the　fifth　century　before　our　era；　we　find　put　forward　the　most　penetrating　guess　as　to　the　constitution　of　matter　that　the　history　of　ancient　thought　has　to　present　to　us。　In　one　direction；　the　avenue　of　progress　is　barred；　there　will　be　no　farther　step　that　way　till　we　come　down　the　centuries　to　the　time　of　Dalton。

HIPPOCRATES　AND　GREEK　MEDICINE　These　studies　of　the　constitution　of　matter　have　carried　us　to　the　limits　of　the　field　of　scientific　imagination　in　antiquity；　let　us　now　turn　sharply　and　consider　a　department　of　science　in　which　theory　joins　hands　with　practicality。　Let　us　witness　the　beginnings　of　scientific　therapeutics。　Medicine　among　the　early　Greeks；　before　the　time　of　Hippocrates；　was　a　crude　mixture　of　religion；　necromancy；　and　mysticism。　Temples　were　erected　to　the　god　of　medicine；　aesculapius；　and　sick　persons　made　their　way；　or　were　carried；　to　these　temples；　where　they　sought　to　gain　the　favor　of　the　god　by　suitable　offerings；　and　learn　the　way　to　regain　their　health　through　remedies　or　methods　revealed　to　them　in　dreams　by　the　god。　When　the　patient　had　been　thus　cured；　he　placed　a　tablet　in　the　temple　describing　his　sickness；　and　telling　by　what　method　the　god　had　cured　him。　He　again　made　suitable　offerings　at　the　temple；　which　were　sometimes　in　the　form　of　gold　or　silver　representations　of　the　diseased　organa　gold　or　silver　model　of　a　heart；　hand；　foot；　etc。　Nevertheless；　despite　this　belief　in　the　supernatural；　many　drugs　and　healing　lotions　were　employed；　and　the　Greek　physicians　possessed　considerable　skill　in　dressing　wounds　and　bandaging。　But　they　did　not　depend　upon　these　surgical　dressings　alone；　using　with　them　certain　appropriate　prayers　and　incantations；　recited　over　the　injured　member　at　the　time　of　applying　the　dressings。　Even　the　very　early　Greeks　had　learned　something　of　anatomy。　The　daily　contact　with　wounds　and　broken　bones　must　of　necessity　lead　to　a　crude　understanding　of　anatomy　in　general。　The　first　Greek　anatomist；　however；　who　is　recognized　as　such；　is　said　to　have　been　Alcmaeon。　He　is　said　to　have　made　extensive　dissections　of　the　lower　animals；　and　to　have　described　many　hitherto　unknown　structures；　such　as　the　optic　nerve　and　the　Eustachian　canalthe　small　tube　leading　into　the　throat　from　the　ear。　He　is　credited　with　many　unique　explanations　of　natural　phenomena；　such　as；　for　example；　the　explanation　that　〃hearing　is　produced　by　the　hollow　bone　behind　the　ear；　for　all　hollow　things　are　sonorous。〃　He　was　a　rationalist；　and　he　taught　that　the　brain　is　the　organ　of　mind。　The　sources　of　our　information　about　his　work；　however；　are　unreliable。　Democedes；　who　lived　in　the　sixth　century　B。C。；　is　the　first　physician　of　whom　we　have　any　trustworthy　history。　We　learn　from　Herodotus　that　he　came　from　Croton　to　aegina；　where；　in　recognition　of　his　skill；　he　was　appointed　medical　officer　of　the　city。　From　aegina　he　was　called　to　Athens　at　an　increased　salary；　and　later　was　in　charge　of　medical　affairs　in　several　other　Greek　cities。　He　was　finally　called　to　Samos　by　the　tyrant　Polycrates；　who　reigned　there　from　about　536　to　522　B。C。　But　on　the　death　of　Polycrates；　who　was　murdered　by　the　Persians；　Democedes　became　a　slave。　His　fame　as　a　physician；　however；　had　reached　the　ears　of　the　Persian　monarch；　and　shortly　after　his　capture　he　was　permitted　to　show　his　skill　upon　King　Darius　himself。　The　Persian　monarch　was　suffering　from　a　sprained　ankle；　which　his　Egyptian　surgeons　had　been　unable　to　cure。　Democedes　not　only　cured　the　injured　member　but　used　his　influence　in　saving　the　lives　of　his　Egyptian　rivals；　who　had　been　condemned　to　death　by　the　king。　At　another　time　he　showed　his　skill　by　curing　the　queen；　who　was　suffering　from　a　chronic　abscess　of　long　standing。　This　so　pleased　the　monarch　that　he　offered　him　as　a　reward　anything　he　mig