Title: Kdo s koho: kritika rané Royal Society v 17. století
Variant title:
- Showdown: criticism of the early Royal Society in the 17th century
Source document: Pro-Fil. 2015, vol. 16, iss. 2, pp. [129]-158
Extent
[129]-158
-
ISSN1212-9097
Stable URL (handle): https://hdl.handle.net/11222.digilib/135086
Type: Article
Language
License: Not specified license
Notice: These citations are automatically created and might not follow citation rules properly.
Abstract(s)
Studie pojednává o kritice experimentální vědy v Anglii v 60. a 70. letech 17. století. Text se soustředí na námitky, které proti nové filosofii a vědě pěstované v Royal Society vznesli ve svých dílech Margaret Cavendishová (1623–1673) a Henry Stubbe (1632–1676). Ačkoliv tito autoři kritizovali institucionalizovanou experimentální vědu z různých hledisek, shodovali se v jednom bodě: Cavendishová i Stubbe vyzdvihovali hodnotu, úroveň a relevanci antického vědění ve srovnání s výsledky bádání představitelů Royal Society. Jejich výhrady vůči Royal Society jsou zde systematiky představeny ve třech tematických blocích: epistemologickém, historickém a nábožensko-politickém. Cílem této studie je ukázat, že navzdory prestiži, které se dnes empirická věda těší, nebyla v 17. století nová přírodní filosofie okamžitě a s nadšením přijímána. Zároveň chce doložit, že názory kritiků, které v dnešní době mohou působit bizarně i zpátečnicky, z tehdejšího hlediska dávaly smysl a někdy mohly být i opodstatněné.
The aim of the study is to discuss the criticism of experimental science in England during the 1660's and 1670's. The text focuses on objections raised in the works of Margaret Cavendish (1623–1673) and Henry Stubbe (1632–1676) against the new philosophy and science of the Royal Society of London. Although these authors criticized institutionalized experimental science from different points of view, they agreed on one point: Cavendish and Stubbe emphasized value, quality and relevance of ancient knowledge in comparison with the results of the research gained by representatives of the Royal Society. The objections to the Royal Society are presented in three thematic groups: epistemological, historical and religious-political. The aim of this study is to show that despite the prestige which the empirical science enjoys today, the new natural philosophy was not accepted immediately and enthusiastically during the 17th century. Finally, the study also suggests that the views of critics, who nowadays can be perceived as bizarre, or even retrograde, made sense at that time.
References
[1] Aarsleff, H. Sprat, Thomas. In: Gillispie, Ch. C. (ed.). Dictionary sv. New York: Charles Scribner's Sons, 1981, sv. 12, s. 580–587.
[2] Austin, W. H. Glanvill, Joseph. In: Gillispie, Ch. C. (ed.). Dictionary 18 sv. New York: Charles Scribner's Sons, 1981, sv. 5, s. 414–417.
[3] Baron, H. The Querelle of the Ancients and the Moderns as a Problem Scholarships. Journal of the History of Ideas, 1959, vol. 20, no. 1, s. 3–22. | DOI 10.2307/2707964
[4] Birch, T. The History of the Royal Society of London. 4 sv. London 1756, sv. I.
[5] Birch, T. The History of the Royal Society of London. 4 sv. London 1756, sv. II.
[6] Boyle, R. An Essay of the Great Effects of even Lanouid and Unheeded Motion. In: The Works of the Honourable Robert Boyle. 6 sv. Ed. Thomas Birch. 2. vyd., London 1772, sv. 5.
[7] Blumenberg, H. Paradigmy k metaforológii. Bratislava: Kalligram, 2015.
[8] Cavendish, M. Observations upon Experimental Philosophy. University Press, 2001.
[9] Cavendish, M. The Blazing World and Other Writings. London: Penguings Books, 1994.
[10] Dear, P. Totius in Verba: Rhetoric and Authority in the Early Royal Society. Isis, 1985, vol. 76, no. 2, s. 144–161.
[11] Delimeau, J. Dějiny ráje, zahrada rozkoše. Praha: Argo, 2003.
[12] Garber, D. Physics and Foundations. In: Daston, L. – Park, K. (eds.). The Cambridge History of Science, vol. III. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2006, s. 21–69.
[13] Glanvill, J. Plus Ultra: or, the Progress and Advancement of Knowledge Since the Days of Aristotle. London, 1668.
[14] Hall, M. B. Royal Society of London. In: Applebaum, W. (ed.) Encyclopedia of the scientific revolution from Copernicus to Newton. New York: Garland Publishings, 2000, s. 903–908.
[15] Harrison, P. Religion, the Royal Society, and the Rise of Science. Theology and Science, 2008, vol. 6, no. 3, s. 254–271. | DOI 10.1080/14746700802206925
[16] Hooke, Micrographia. London: Royal Society, 1665.
[17] Houghton, W. E., Jr. The English Virtuoso in the Seventeenth Century: Part I. Journal of the History of Ideas, 1942, vol. 3, no 1, s. 51–73. | DOI 10.2307/2707461
[18] Hunter, M. – Wood, P. B. Towards Solomon's House: Rival Strategies for Reforming the Early Royal Society. History of Science, 1986, vol. 24, no. 1, s. 49–108. | DOI 10.1177/007327538602400103
[19] Jacob, J. R. Henry Stubbe, Radical Protestantism and the Early Enlightenment. 1. vyd. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1983.
[20] Jones, R. F. Ancients and Moderns. A Study of the Rise of the Scientific Movement in Seventeenth-Century England. 2 vyd. St. Louis: Washington University Studies, 1961.
[21] O'Neill, E. Introduction. In: Cavendish, M. Observations upon Experimental Philosophy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2001.
[22] Sarasohn, L. T. Cavendish Margaret. In: Koertge, N. (ed.). New Dictionary of Scientific Biography. 8 sv. Detroit: Charles Scribner's Sons, 2008, sv. 2, s. 79–81.
[23] Sarasohn, L. T. The Natural Philosophy of Margaret Cavendish. Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins University Press, 2010.
[24] Shapin, S. – Schaffer, S. Leviathan and the Air-pump. Hobbes, Boyle, and the Experimental Life. Princeton, Princeton University Press, 1985.
[25] Shapin, S. The Scientific Revolution. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1996.
[26] Spiller, M. R. G. – Jacob, J. R. Die Opposition gegen die Royal Society. In. Schobinger, J.-P. (ed.) Die Philosophie des 17. Jahrhunderts, sv. 3: England. Basel: Schwabe & Co., 1988, s. 442–453.
[27] Sprat, T. The History of the Royal-Society of London For the Improving of Natural Knowledge. London, 1667.
[28] Stubbe, H. Campanella Revived: or, An enquiry into the History of the Royal Society. London, 1670.
[29] Stubbe, H. Legends no Histories: or, A Specimen of some Animadversions upon the History of the Royal Society. London, 1670.
[30] Stubbe, H. The Plus Ultra Reduced to a Non-Plus, of, A specimen of some Animadversion upon the Plus Ultra of Mr Glanvill. London, 1670.
[31] Syfret, R. H. Some Early Critics of the Royal Society. Notes and Records of the Royal Society of London, 1950, vol. 8, no. 1, s. 20–64.
[32] Špelda, D. Astronomie v antice. Ostrava: Montanex, 2006.
[33] Špelda, D. Astronomie ve středověku. Ostrava: Montanex, 2008.
[34] Špelda, D. Pravda – dcera času. O původu ideje pokroku poznání. Praha: Pavel Mervart, 2015 (v tisku).
[35] Webster, Ch. The Great Instauration: Science, Medicine and Reform, 1626–1660. New York: Holmes & Meier Publishers, 1976.
[2] Austin, W. H. Glanvill, Joseph. In: Gillispie, Ch. C. (ed.). Dictionary 18 sv. New York: Charles Scribner's Sons, 1981, sv. 5, s. 414–417.
[3] Baron, H. The Querelle of the Ancients and the Moderns as a Problem Scholarships. Journal of the History of Ideas, 1959, vol. 20, no. 1, s. 3–22. | DOI 10.2307/2707964
[4] Birch, T. The History of the Royal Society of London. 4 sv. London 1756, sv. I.
[5] Birch, T. The History of the Royal Society of London. 4 sv. London 1756, sv. II.
[6] Boyle, R. An Essay of the Great Effects of even Lanouid and Unheeded Motion. In: The Works of the Honourable Robert Boyle. 6 sv. Ed. Thomas Birch. 2. vyd., London 1772, sv. 5.
[7] Blumenberg, H. Paradigmy k metaforológii. Bratislava: Kalligram, 2015.
[8] Cavendish, M. Observations upon Experimental Philosophy. University Press, 2001.
[9] Cavendish, M. The Blazing World and Other Writings. London: Penguings Books, 1994.
[10] Dear, P. Totius in Verba: Rhetoric and Authority in the Early Royal Society. Isis, 1985, vol. 76, no. 2, s. 144–161.
[11] Delimeau, J. Dějiny ráje, zahrada rozkoše. Praha: Argo, 2003.
[12] Garber, D. Physics and Foundations. In: Daston, L. – Park, K. (eds.). The Cambridge History of Science, vol. III. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2006, s. 21–69.
[13] Glanvill, J. Plus Ultra: or, the Progress and Advancement of Knowledge Since the Days of Aristotle. London, 1668.
[14] Hall, M. B. Royal Society of London. In: Applebaum, W. (ed.) Encyclopedia of the scientific revolution from Copernicus to Newton. New York: Garland Publishings, 2000, s. 903–908.
[15] Harrison, P. Religion, the Royal Society, and the Rise of Science. Theology and Science, 2008, vol. 6, no. 3, s. 254–271. | DOI 10.1080/14746700802206925
[16] Hooke, Micrographia. London: Royal Society, 1665.
[17] Houghton, W. E., Jr. The English Virtuoso in the Seventeenth Century: Part I. Journal of the History of Ideas, 1942, vol. 3, no 1, s. 51–73. | DOI 10.2307/2707461
[18] Hunter, M. – Wood, P. B. Towards Solomon's House: Rival Strategies for Reforming the Early Royal Society. History of Science, 1986, vol. 24, no. 1, s. 49–108. | DOI 10.1177/007327538602400103
[19] Jacob, J. R. Henry Stubbe, Radical Protestantism and the Early Enlightenment. 1. vyd. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1983.
[20] Jones, R. F. Ancients and Moderns. A Study of the Rise of the Scientific Movement in Seventeenth-Century England. 2 vyd. St. Louis: Washington University Studies, 1961.
[21] O'Neill, E. Introduction. In: Cavendish, M. Observations upon Experimental Philosophy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2001.
[22] Sarasohn, L. T. Cavendish Margaret. In: Koertge, N. (ed.). New Dictionary of Scientific Biography. 8 sv. Detroit: Charles Scribner's Sons, 2008, sv. 2, s. 79–81.
[23] Sarasohn, L. T. The Natural Philosophy of Margaret Cavendish. Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins University Press, 2010.
[24] Shapin, S. – Schaffer, S. Leviathan and the Air-pump. Hobbes, Boyle, and the Experimental Life. Princeton, Princeton University Press, 1985.
[25] Shapin, S. The Scientific Revolution. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1996.
[26] Spiller, M. R. G. – Jacob, J. R. Die Opposition gegen die Royal Society. In. Schobinger, J.-P. (ed.) Die Philosophie des 17. Jahrhunderts, sv. 3: England. Basel: Schwabe & Co., 1988, s. 442–453.
[27] Sprat, T. The History of the Royal-Society of London For the Improving of Natural Knowledge. London, 1667.
[28] Stubbe, H. Campanella Revived: or, An enquiry into the History of the Royal Society. London, 1670.
[29] Stubbe, H. Legends no Histories: or, A Specimen of some Animadversions upon the History of the Royal Society. London, 1670.
[30] Stubbe, H. The Plus Ultra Reduced to a Non-Plus, of, A specimen of some Animadversion upon the Plus Ultra of Mr Glanvill. London, 1670.
[31] Syfret, R. H. Some Early Critics of the Royal Society. Notes and Records of the Royal Society of London, 1950, vol. 8, no. 1, s. 20–64.
[32] Špelda, D. Astronomie v antice. Ostrava: Montanex, 2006.
[33] Špelda, D. Astronomie ve středověku. Ostrava: Montanex, 2008.
[34] Špelda, D. Pravda – dcera času. O původu ideje pokroku poznání. Praha: Pavel Mervart, 2015 (v tisku).
[35] Webster, Ch. The Great Instauration: Science, Medicine and Reform, 1626–1660. New York: Holmes & Meier Publishers, 1976.