1 The Birth of Science - MSRI

5.4 The Scientific Method in Medicine 131
ample freedom in the choice of what anatomic structures deserve a name.
When Herophilus picks from the continuous and enormously complex page 172
structure that is the circulatory system those particular morphological features
that warrant a specific name (such as calamus or torcular) in view of
his physiological and pathological purposes, he is creating new concepts.
He is in fact inaugurating a new discipline in which not only the words
but even the corresponding concepts are conscious creations.
This is, in my opinion, the source of the impression of “scientificness”
that one has in reading Herophilus’ anatomical excerpts, so different in
texture from Aristotle’s “anatomical” discussions.
The use of specific and consciously created theoretical concepts is in
fact one of the essential features that characterize scientific theories in our
sense. But the scientific theories of “exact science” described in Chapter 3,
which were developing in the time of Herophilus, were also characterized
by being:
– based on empirical data, without being uniquely determined by them;
– internally certain, thanks to a rigorously deductive structure;
– applicable to concrete problems, via “correspondence rules” lacking absolute
validity.
Do these characteristics have analogues in Herophilean anatomy and
medicine? Any attempt to answer this question must start from the existing
testimonia about the scientific methodology of Herophilus. Unfortunately,
in these passages, dating from the imperial period, the authors —
Galen, in particular — do not seem to be in a position to appreciate the
conceptual depth of their source.
The testimonia leave no doubt as to the fact that Herophilus considered
it essential to found knowledge on empirical bases. Galen, for example,
writes:
We find, however, that this Herophilus concedes no small importance
to experience, nay indeed, to speak the truth (and it is the fittest
to be spoken), he makes experience all-important. 31
And regarding the formation of the fetus: page 173
For he considers that anatomical descriptions do not produce any
presupposition of knowledge on the basis of which [one might] say
“this part arose from this other part”, as some, misunderstanding,
believe; [he thinks] that the faculties that govern us should be discov-
31 Galen, De experientia medica, 13.6 = [von Staden: H], text 52; translated by Richard Walzer from
the Arabic version of a Greek original.
Revision: 1.9 Date: 2002/09/14 19:12:01