5 ms·

The ancient Greeks were long ago discussing the possible existence of “animalcules.” Fracastaro gets credit because he wasn’t just philosophizing, he described

The ancient Greeks were long ago discussing the possible existence of “animalcules.” Fracastaro gets credit because he wasn’t just philosophizing, he described actual disease in great detail with supporting cases (I hesitate to say “data,” that wasn’t really a thing yet) to argue for its mechanism. It’s the difference between a stoner strumming his guitar, “dude, what if we’re all, like, strings?” and string theory.

thaumasiotes 8y ago
I think the advice "don't live near a swamp, because the tiny invisible creatures in there will make you sick, and if you do have a farm next to a swamp, sell it" is a little more detailed than "dude, what if we're all, like, strings?" Describing disease in great detail is nothing the Romans didn't also do, nor does it have anything to do with the germ theory of disease.
- arkades 8y ago
  That advice applies equally well to miasma (and, in fact, it’s ability to accurately relate to geography of disease is part of why it was taken seriously.) Which is why F. gets credit for actually making detailed observations and hypotheses that we’re borne out.
  - thaumasiotes 8y ago
    No, the advice that tiny creatures within the swamp will make you sick does not apply to miasma; those are competing theories. The advice "stay away from swamps; they'll make you sick" does indeed apply to both theories. Detailed observations also apply to both theories. Everyone everywhere has detailed observations of disease, usually the same ones. Girolamo Fracastoro did not, as far as I can see, make any hypotheses or predictions that other people hadn't made thousands of years before he was born, nor did he observe in any greater or more relevant detail. He exemplifies the observation "Christopher Columbus is famous for being the last person to discover America". He made what had been common knowledge common knowledge again. Unless you can identify something he did that was notable? What hypothesis did he make that Varro didn't already know? I ask because "tiny creatures get into your body and cause disease" is pretty much the beginning and end of modern germ theory today.

thaumasiotes 8y ago

I think the advice "don't live near a swamp, because the tiny invisible creatures in there will make you sick, and if you do have a farm next to a swamp, sell it" is a little more detailed than "dude, what if we're all, like, strings?" Describing disease in great detail is nothing the Romans didn't also do, nor does it have anything to do with the germ theory of disease.

arkades 8y ago
That advice applies equally well to miasma (and, in fact, it’s ability to accurately relate to geography of disease is part of why it was taken seriously.) Which is why F. gets credit for actually making detailed observations and hypotheses that we’re borne out.
- thaumasiotes 8y ago
  No, the advice that tiny creatures within the swamp will make you sick does not apply to miasma; those are competing theories. The advice "stay away from swamps; they'll make you sick" does indeed apply to both theories. Detailed observations also apply to both theories. Everyone everywhere has detailed observations of disease, usually the same ones. Girolamo Fracastoro did not, as far as I can see, make any hypotheses or predictions that other people hadn't made thousands of years before he was born, nor did he observe in any greater or more relevant detail. He exemplifies the observation "Christopher Columbus is famous for being the last person to discover America". He made what had been common knowledge common knowledge again. Unless you can identify something he did that was notable? What hypothesis did he make that Varro didn't already know? I ask because "tiny creatures get into your body and cause disease" is pretty much the beginning and end of modern germ theory today.