Descartes and Harvey
Is it fair to say that Descartes patronised Harvey during their dispute on the circulation of the blood? I am aware that Descartes was operating from a different premise with his mind/body dualism, but the fact that Harvey was a doctor with years of experience and Descartes had no experience in that field does seem quite condescending?
Comments (4)
https://philarchive.org/archive/PETDOT-3
Get this:
The importance and degree of certainty that Descartes accords to his account of the heartbeat cannot be overemphasized. Descartes reiterates every chance he gets, that his explanation of cardiac motion sits at the very core of his physiological endeavors.
“It is so important to know the true cause of the heart’s movement that without such knowledge it is impossible to know anything which relates to the theory of medicine. For all the other functions of the animal are dependent on this,” he states in the Description of the Human Body (AT XI 245 / CSM I 319).
...and he was totally wrong!
In the Discourse of 1637: “Being the first and most widespread movement that we observe in
animals, it [the motion of the heart and blood] will enable us to decide
how we ought to think about all the others.” (AT VI 46–47 / CSM I 134)
So that's a large affirmative on the condescension question!