'Ancient episteme' and the nature of fossils: a correction of a modern scholarly error.
Identifieur interne : 000006 ( PubMed/Checkpoint ); précédent : 000005; suivant : 000007'Ancient episteme' and the nature of fossils: a correction of a modern scholarly error.
Auteurs : J M Jordan [États-Unis]Source :
- History and philosophy of the life sciences [ 0391-9714 ] ; 2016.
Abstract
Beginning the nineteenth-century and continuing down to the present, many authors writing on the history of geology and paleontology have attributed the theory that fossils were inorganic formations produced within the earth, rather than by the deposition of living organisms, to the ancient Greeks and Romans. Some have even gone so far as to claim this was the consensus view in the classical period up through the Middle Ages. In fact, such a notion was entirely foreign to ancient and medieval thought and only appeared within the manifold of 'Renaissance episteme,' the characteristics of which have often been projected backwards by some historians onto earlier periods. This paper endeavors to correct this error, explain the development of the Renaissance view, describe certain ancient precedents thereof, and trace the history of the misinterpretation in the literature.
DOI: 10.1007/s40656-015-0094-6
PubMed: 26797724
Affiliations:
Links toward previous steps (curation, corpus...)
Links to Exploration step
pubmed:26797724Le document en format XML
<record><TEI><teiHeader><fileDesc><titleStmt><title xml:lang="en">'Ancient episteme' and the nature of fossils: a correction of a modern scholarly error.</title><author><name sortKey="Jordan, J M" sort="Jordan, J M" uniqKey="Jordan J" first="J M" last="Jordan">J M Jordan</name><affiliation wicri:level="3"><nlm:affiliation>University of Texas Rio Grande Valley, Edinburgh, USA. jordajas@gmail.com.</nlm:affiliation><country xml:lang="fr">États-Unis</country><wicri:regionArea>University of Texas Rio Grande Valley, Edinburgh</wicri:regionArea><placeName><settlement type="city">Édimbourg</settlement><region type="country">Écosse</region></placeName></affiliation></author></titleStmt><publicationStmt><idno type="wicri:source">PubMed</idno><date when="2016">2016</date><idno type="RBID">pubmed:26797724</idno><idno type="pmid">26797724</idno><idno type="doi">10.1007/s40656-015-0094-6</idno><idno type="wicri:Area/PubMed/Corpus">000003</idno><idno type="wicri:explorRef" wicri:stream="PubMed" wicri:step="Corpus" wicri:corpus="PubMed">000003</idno><idno type="wicri:Area/PubMed/Curation">000003</idno><idno type="wicri:explorRef" wicri:stream="PubMed" wicri:step="Curation">000003</idno><idno type="wicri:Area/PubMed/Checkpoint">000003</idno><idno type="wicri:explorRef" wicri:stream="Checkpoint" wicri:step="PubMed">000003</idno></publicationStmt><sourceDesc><biblStruct><analytic><title xml:lang="en">'Ancient episteme' and the nature of fossils: a correction of a modern scholarly error.</title><author><name sortKey="Jordan, J M" sort="Jordan, J M" uniqKey="Jordan J" first="J M" last="Jordan">J M Jordan</name><affiliation wicri:level="3"><nlm:affiliation>University of Texas Rio Grande Valley, Edinburgh, USA. jordajas@gmail.com.</nlm:affiliation><country xml:lang="fr">États-Unis</country><wicri:regionArea>University of Texas Rio Grande Valley, Edinburgh</wicri:regionArea><placeName><settlement type="city">Édimbourg</settlement><region type="country">Écosse</region></placeName></affiliation></author></analytic><series><title level="j">History and philosophy of the life sciences</title><idno type="ISSN">0391-9714</idno><imprint><date when="2016" type="published">2016</date></imprint></series></biblStruct></sourceDesc></fileDesc><profileDesc><textClass></textClass></profileDesc></teiHeader><front><div type="abstract" xml:lang="en">Beginning the nineteenth-century and continuing down to the present, many authors writing on the history of geology and paleontology have attributed the theory that fossils were inorganic formations produced within the earth, rather than by the deposition of living organisms, to the ancient Greeks and Romans. Some have even gone so far as to claim this was the consensus view in the classical period up through the Middle Ages. In fact, such a notion was entirely foreign to ancient and medieval thought and only appeared within the manifold of 'Renaissance episteme,' the characteristics of which have often been projected backwards by some historians onto earlier periods. This paper endeavors to correct this error, explain the development of the Renaissance view, describe certain ancient precedents thereof, and trace the history of the misinterpretation in the literature.</div></front></TEI><pubmed><MedlineCitation Owner="NLM" Status="In-Data-Review"><PMID Version="1">26797724</PMID><DateCreated><Year>2016</Year><Month>04</Month><Day>08</Day></DateCreated><Article PubModel="Print-Electronic"><Journal><ISSN IssnType="Print">0391-9714</ISSN><JournalIssue CitedMedium="Print"><Volume>38</Volume><Issue>1</Issue><PubDate><Year>2016</Year><Month>Apr</Month></PubDate></JournalIssue><Title>History and philosophy of the life sciences</Title><ISOAbbreviation>Hist Philos Life Sci</ISOAbbreviation></Journal><ArticleTitle>'Ancient episteme' and the nature of fossils: a correction of a modern scholarly error.</ArticleTitle><Pagination><MedlinePgn>90-116</MedlinePgn></Pagination><ELocationID EIdType="doi" ValidYN="Y">10.1007/s40656-015-0094-6</ELocationID><Abstract><AbstractText>Beginning the nineteenth-century and continuing down to the present, many authors writing on the history of geology and paleontology have attributed the theory that fossils were inorganic formations produced within the earth, rather than by the deposition of living organisms, to the ancient Greeks and Romans. Some have even gone so far as to claim this was the consensus view in the classical period up through the Middle Ages. In fact, such a notion was entirely foreign to ancient and medieval thought and only appeared within the manifold of 'Renaissance episteme,' the characteristics of which have often been projected backwards by some historians onto earlier periods. This paper endeavors to correct this error, explain the development of the Renaissance view, describe certain ancient precedents thereof, and trace the history of the misinterpretation in the literature.</AbstractText></Abstract><AuthorList CompleteYN="Y"><Author ValidYN="Y"><LastName>Jordan</LastName><ForeName>J M</ForeName><Initials>JM</Initials><AffiliationInfo><Affiliation>University of Texas Rio Grande Valley, Edinburgh, USA. jordajas@gmail.com.</Affiliation></AffiliationInfo></Author></AuthorList><Language>eng</Language><PublicationTypeList><PublicationType UI="D016428">Journal Article</PublicationType></PublicationTypeList><ArticleDate DateType="Electronic"><Year>2016</Year><Month>01</Month><Day>21</Day></ArticleDate></Article><MedlineJournalInfo><Country>Switzerland</Country><MedlineTA>Hist Philos Life Sci</MedlineTA><NlmUniqueID>8003052</NlmUniqueID><ISSNLinking>0391-9714</ISSNLinking></MedlineJournalInfo><CitationSubset>IM</CitationSubset><CitationSubset>QIS</CitationSubset><KeywordList Owner="NOTNLM"><Keyword MajorTopicYN="N">Antiquity</Keyword><Keyword MajorTopicYN="N">Episteme</Keyword><Keyword MajorTopicYN="N">Fossils</Keyword><Keyword MajorTopicYN="N">Geology</Keyword></KeywordList></MedlineCitation><PubmedData><History><PubMedPubDate PubStatus="received"><Year>2015</Year><Month>9</Month><Day>14</Day></PubMedPubDate><PubMedPubDate PubStatus="accepted"><Year>2015</Year><Month>12</Month><Day>23</Day></PubMedPubDate><PubMedPubDate PubStatus="aheadofprint"><Year>2016</Year><Month>1</Month><Day>21</Day></PubMedPubDate><PubMedPubDate PubStatus="entrez"><Year>2016</Year><Month>1</Month><Day>23</Day><Hour>6</Hour><Minute>0</Minute></PubMedPubDate><PubMedPubDate PubStatus="pubmed"><Year>2016</Year><Month>1</Month><Day>23</Day><Hour>6</Hour><Minute>0</Minute></PubMedPubDate><PubMedPubDate PubStatus="medline"><Year>2016</Year><Month>1</Month><Day>23</Day><Hour>6</Hour><Minute>0</Minute></PubMedPubDate></History><PublicationStatus>ppublish</PublicationStatus><ArticleIdList><ArticleId IdType="pubmed">26797724</ArticleId><ArticleId IdType="doi">10.1007/s40656-015-0094-6</ArticleId><ArticleId IdType="pii">10.1007/s40656-015-0094-6</ArticleId></ArticleIdList></PubmedData></pubmed><affiliations><list><country><li>États-Unis</li></country><region><li>Écosse</li></region><settlement><li>Édimbourg</li></settlement></list><tree><country name="États-Unis"><region name="Écosse"><name sortKey="Jordan, J M" sort="Jordan, J M" uniqKey="Jordan J" first="J M" last="Jordan">J M Jordan</name></region></country></tree></affiliations></record>Pour manipuler ce document sous Unix (Dilib)
EXPLOR_STEP=$WICRI_ROOT/Ticri/CIDE/explor/EpistemeV1/Data/PubMed/Checkpoint
HfdSelect -h $EXPLOR_STEP/biblio.hfd -nk 000006 | SxmlIndent | more
Ou
HfdSelect -h $EXPLOR_AREA/Data/PubMed/Checkpoint/biblio.hfd -nk 000006 | SxmlIndent | more
Pour mettre un lien sur cette page dans le réseau Wicri
{{Explor lien
|wiki= Ticri/CIDE
|area= EpistemeV1
|flux= PubMed
|étape= Checkpoint
|type= RBID
|clé= pubmed:26797724
|texte= 'Ancient episteme' and the nature of fossils: a correction of a modern scholarly error.
}}
Pour générer des pages wiki
HfdIndexSelect -h $EXPLOR_AREA/Data/PubMed/Checkpoint/RBID.i -Sk "pubmed:26797724" \
| HfdSelect -Kh $EXPLOR_AREA/Data/PubMed/Checkpoint/biblio.hfd \
| NlmPubMed2Wicri -a EpistemeV1
| This area was generated with Dilib version V0.6.31. |  |