William Harvey was a British physician who did what all good modern scientists are taught to do; which is upon coming across an inexplicable phenomenon, compose a hypothesis, research, collect data, devise a theory, then share this information with fellow scientists. . He obtained a Doctor of Physic diploma from the University of Padua in 1602.
But Human Heredity, in the biological sense, was for many centuries only a metaphor.Because of his family status, Harvey had no problem obtaining a privileged education. He studied at the elite King’s School in Canterbury (1588–1594) and later at Gonville and Caius College of Cambridge University, where he received a B. A The noun itself (heredity) did not have the causal meaning that has come to characterize it. “We acknowledge God, the Supreme and Omnipotent Creator, to be present in the production of all animals, and to point, as it were, with a finger to His existence in His works.There Harvey studied under a student of Versalius, Fabricius, who had written a treatise on the valves in veins but hadn’t the vaguest idea about what they did other than that they might slow blood flow Since antiquity till the 18th century, the adjective “hereditary” was the one employed when a given trait was found to characterize a family or another genealogical group.When one reads the treatises that bear Hippocrates’ name, for many of these treatises are believed to have been written not by him but by his followers (1), one is impressed by the clinical acumen in the face of a nearly complete ignorance of the relation of disease to the structure and function of the human body.
What remains of Hippocrates today is his “oath” (1); the physicians’ “Sermon on the Mount,” intended to initiate them into one of man’s noblest professions.Their attempts at providing coherent physical and metaphysical accounts of the human (and animal) existence faced both authors with the facts of the hereditary, especially when describing their views on “generation”. For them, as for the 18th century theorists long after them, the hereditary —the facts of resemblance, hybridization and familial diseases— constituted a part of the phenomena they were supposed to “save” with their theoretical elaborations. And then, it occurred with much more frequency when anomalies, moral or physical were the subject.Hereditary gout or hereditary depravities were more common formulas than their positive counterparts.
Montaigne, for instance, wrote his piece to describe how he among all his brothers was unlucky enough to have inherited the bladder stone that plagued his father’s life. Beside the mystery of the transmission he refers to above, he found mysterious the fact that his father’s stone appeared well after he was born, and his own stone appeared more or less at the same age his father had when it happened to him.What kind of funny influence could hide itself like that and then know somehow when to show its ugly That institution, the alma mater of the same Dr. Caius who helped found Harvey’s alma mater at Cambridge, was one of the great centers of medical education at the time, the home of Galileo and the great anatomist Versalius.
Harvey was ahead of his time when he detailed the mechanism for systemic blood flow. Cosmological arguments Intro •seek to argue for the existence of God based on what we experience of the world and universe we live in. establish what caused everything to be here, or how the world and the universe began. Aquinas •Ways 1&2; unmoved mover & uncaused causer •Concerned with why there is any motion or causation ; Copleston called this an ‘ontologically ultimate cause’ •First mover which causes everything else to exist •God is the first efficient cause of the universe •Rejects infinite regression •God is a pure act •Way 3:argument for contingency •God necessarily exists •The argument from first causes: Whatever exists is here, because something else has caused it to be here (for example, children are here because of their parents).Things cannot cause themselves to exist (for example, children cannot give birth to themselves). There cannot be a never-ending (infinite) chain of causes.
God is the first cause of everything here. •The argument from motion: Things move (or become something else), because something moves them to do so. It is impossible for motion in the universe to have always been happening, so it must have begun somewhere (and somehow). There cannot be a never-ending (infinite) chain of events. God is the first mover of everything here.
David Hume •Every event has a cause? •The fallacy of composition •Whole universe has a cause just because everything within it does? •No proof of God The Russell- Copleston debate- agree to disagree in the end Copleston•Reformulated 3rd way & Leibniz sufficient cause- God is his own sufficient cause & necessary •Universe can be sufficiently explained by reference to God •God different from contingent beings- ‘his own sufficient cause’ •There is a point explaining why there is a universe Hierarchy of causes- God at top- uncaused- sufficient cause •Universe& things within it- contingent= relies on God •“if one does not even sit down at the chessboard, one can not be check mated” Russell •Explanation of universe exists is beyond human comprehension •Unnecessary to have a sufficient explanation •It’s just there •Quantum transitions-cause themselves •Just because things in universe contingent- universe isn’t = skipping steps •“humans have mothers but the human race doesn’t have a mother that’s a different logical sphere”