|
|
Re: Big Reply 7Clyde Davenport (clyde@BUS.HIROSHIMA-PU.AC.JP)Tue, 9 Jul 1996 09:20:53 +0900
Goodman's worthy response to my earlier posting (which itself was in reply to an earlier posting of his) until next month as I am going on vacation for a few weeks. However, here I would like to make one quick point. Gary writes: >(BTW, though pretty familiar with the Inquisition I must admit to have somehow completely missed "Carolyn Merchant's connection between the Inquisition and scientific techniques" which considering the timing and details I am aware of seems at first glance to be blithering nonsense -- anyone tell me the book or article this is in. I'd love to see how this "connection" was made?) I comment: Francis Bacon (1561-1626) states that the underlying purpose of experimentation is "natura vexata," to annoy or vex nature so that it reveals its secrets. He also directly compares the role of the experimentor to the role of the inquisitor who tortures his victims. See Morris Berman, _ The Reenchantment of the World_ (Cornell University Press, 1981), p. 28 and Carolyn Merchant, _The Death of Nature: Women, Ecology and the Scientific Revolution_ , (Harper and Row, 1980) pp. 165-172. The question here is in evaluating Bacon's role in the development of science. How influential was he? Also to what extent did others share his view of the nature of experimentation. Clyde Davenport Shobara-shi Japan
|