The Theory of the Circulation of Blood and (Different) Paths of Aristotelianism. Girolamo Franzosi’s De motu cordis et sanguinis in animalibus pro Aristotele et Galeno adversus anatomicos neotericos libri duo: Teleology versus Mechanism?

Few discoveries in the history of medicine had a greater impact than William Harvey’s discovery of the circulation of blood, and few intellectual milieus of the early modern period had as decisive a part in the rise of ‘modern’ medicine and the shaping of the western scientific mentality in general than the philosophical and scientific movement of ‘Venetian Aristotelianism’, which grew up around the University of Padua, where Harvey himself had studied. In this chapter, I aim to explore some aspects of the intellectual movement of ‘Venetian Aristotelianism’ as well as the debate that ensued upon the discovery of the circulation of blood. My focus, however, is not on any of the major protagonists, but rather on a quite marginal figure in this debate, namely Hieronymus Franzosi.

Normativism versus mechanism

Using normative correctness as a diagnostic tool reduces the outcome of complex cognitive functions to a binary classification (normative or non-normative). It also focuses attention on outcomes, rather than processes, impeding the development of good cognitive theories. Given that both normative and non-normative responses may be produced by the same process, normativity is a poor indicator of underlying processes.