ABSTRACT

It is something of a commonplace that the presence of clockwork throughout early modern Europe was a key technological factor in inspiring an approach to investigation of the natural world characteristic of the New Science and the so-called Mechanical Philosophy. I challenge that truism on two grounds. One is that attempts to account for organic processes by appeal to working artefacts typically drew less on clockwork than on so-called pneumatic devices. Given the importance of explaining the functioning of organisms to any thoroughgoing account of the workings of nature, an analogue that depends on rigid intersecting toothed wheels, springs or pendula had limited ability to suggest how biological nature functions. By contrast, pneumatic devices – working by pressure of water, trapped air and steam – offered resources to suggest how crucial functions of organisms might be designed to work without ongoing intelligent direction. The other is that the appeal to wind-up devices as a model for the independent functioning of the natural world can be found in texts predating the invention of clockwork. Clockwork was both unnecessary and insufficient to indicate how nature might function unassisted.

摘要

发条在整个早期现代欧洲的存在是激发研究新科学和所谓的机械哲学特征的自然世界的方法的关键技术因素，这是司空见惯的事情。我基于两个理由挑战这一真理。一是通过诉诸工作制品来解释有机过程的尝试通常比所谓的气动装置对发条的影响要少。鉴于对自然运作的任何彻底解释来解释生物体的功能的重要性，依赖于刚性相交齿轮、弹簧或钟摆的类似物在暗示生物自然如何运作方面的能力有限。相比之下，气动装置——靠水压工作，被困的空气和蒸汽——提供了资源，以表明在没有持续的智能指导的情况下，生物体的关键功能可能会如何工作。另一个原因是，在发条发明之前的文本中可以找到将发条装置作为自然界独立运作模型的吸引力。发条既没有必要也不足以表明自然如何在没有帮助的情况下运作。