Homework?

I found a really good essay on the subject.

https://philarchive.org/archive/PETDOT-3

Get this:

The importance and degree of certainty that Descartes accords to his account of the heartbeat cannot be overemphasized. Descartes reiterates every chance he gets, that his explanation of cardiac motion sits at the very core of his physiological endeavors.

“It is so important to know the true cause of the heart’s movement that without such knowledge it is impossible to know anything which relates to the theory of medicine. For all the other functions of the animal are dependent on this,” he states in the Description of the Human Body (AT XI 245 / CSM I 319).

...and he was totally wrong!

In the Discourse of 1637: “Being the first and most widespread movement that we observe in
animals, it [the motion of the heart and blood] will enable us to decide
how we ought to think about all the others.” (AT VI 46–47 / CSM I 134)

So that's a large affirmative on the condescension question!

Descartes was, I believe, a dyed-in-the-wool, true blue, rationalist - for this Frenchman who, unfortunately died of pneumonia while attempting to tutor a princess, nothing, absolutely nothing, was beyond the reach of reason - he could, as he would've believed strongly, lie in his bed and discover the deepest secrets of the universe simply by thinking; surely, such a simple process as blood circulation would be mere child's play for him. What's up with theoretical physicists?

Thanks so much guys for the help! It's very much appreciated! I really appreciate the article link attached also. I am in the middle of my UGD and wanted to make sure that my views are not baseless. I do try to be charitable, but it's impossible to ignore Descartes' pompous attitude at times. I certainly believe that he was out of his depth in the dispute and was clutching at straws. I'd argue that his attempted attack, was just to reinforce his mind/body problem. Thanks again!