Customer Reviews

A People's History of Science: Miners, Midwives, and Low Mechanicks (Nation Books)

5 star:		(13)
4 star:		(4)
3 star:		(3)
2 star:		(1)
1 star:		(6)

 

 

It seems that Cliff Conner's challenging interpretation has ruffled some feathers. The fact that he dares to think that there has been gender and racial and class bias impacting on the history of science immediately damns him in the eyes of some reviewers on this site.

One reviewer has been so upset that he felt compelled to reach for the most terrible label ever: "post-modernist." It seems to me that there is nothing of the sort in Cliff Conner's conceptions or vocabulary. He may be a small "d" democrat, even a good old-fashioned Marxist, but not one of those terrrible, terrible post-modernists (although they, too, happen to talk about the impact of bias on science).

To speak of such things is apparently reason for some folks to uncork their bottle of insults, and splash about unpleasant accusations. That's too bad, since it can easily be documented that social bias and elitism have had an impact among scientists as well as among intellectual historians. It's not such a controversial point.

Rather than getting bent out of shape over Conner's statement of the obvious, the reader should relax and follow the flow of this clearly written book. What Conner shows is rooted in the anthropologically sound understanding that science is a collective process of comprehending and changing the world around us. This is hardly to deny the fact that there have been outstanding and "craftsman-like" individuals who have sythesized the work of others to develop new insights and make exciting breakthroughs. (For every such genius, of course, there are a number of intellectual thieves -- some of whom fare badly in Conner's book -- but that it is another matter.) Unlike so many intellectual historians, however, Conner's focus is on the collective process, the unacknowledged heroines and heroes, Conner's "Miners, Midwives, and 'Low Mechaniks'" (as well as hunters and gatherers and early horticulturalists) whose efforts were essential to the forward movement of science.

This is a very good book. As with any such work one can disagree with this or that aspect of the interpretation, of course. But it can be read profitably in conjunction with more standard works which focus on the contributions coming from the "great names" in science. Is it the last word in the history of science? Of course not. But it does offer us, in a very readable and often compelling form, essential dimensions of the story.

I am not sure whether the author writes history or he is "cherry-picking" to justify his own ideology. The book is definitely BIASED and contains many things that inaccurate or incorrect.

I will focus basically on Chapter 3, entitled "What Greek Miracle?".

Regarding mathematics, of course the Greeks came into contact, were influenced, etc, by the Egyptians, Babylonians, etc, (as many ancient Greeks reported), but that's not the point. The point, which Conner deliberately or by ignorance is missing, is that the Greeks (first) saw the need to introduce the notion of PROOF (and rigor in general) in mathematics, perhaps due to the socio-political (and religious) dynamics of their time, and that's what we mean when we say that they founded contemporary mathematics. The Pythagorean Theorem was well known to the Babylonians, true, but the proof of it was NOT. The need to provide a rigorous argument for such property of a right-angle triangle begins with the Greeks, and not with the Babylonians, unless Conner has any evidence to the contrary which he does NOT.

The author also tends to identify Plato's insistence on geometry with Greek mathematics. Geometry was not ALL Greek mathematics. Even in Euclid's "Elements" we have several Chapters on Number Theory, but Conner conveniently doesn't mention that. Conner also downplays the practical mathematics that Archimedes engaged into, and completely omits the immense contributions of Diophantus in algebra and arithmetic, just so give weight to his silly argument that "geometry was for the elite, arithmetic was for the poor, therefore the Greeks and the rest of the scientist until today, who relied on Greeks, had one thing in mind: to distort history, and keep poor and non-whites down".

Regarding Aristotle (and science in general), to say that "he didn't give us anything new, other than what the farmers, fishermen, etc, knew already", betrays a lack of knowledge of Aristotle's work or/and misses the point on what we mean by science altogether. Just as in Math above, true, maybe the fishermen knew much of what Aristotle said, that's not the point. The point is that he gave us the METHOD (observation-
hypothesis-experiment, verification etc). That's what we mean by when we call him the "father of modern science". He was also "hands-on", unlike Plato, cutting open dead animals to study their anatomy, etc, and in his emphasis on experience is justified in several chapters in his "The Parts of Animals".

The same mistakes Conner does on the subject of medicine. The separation of religion, superstition, etc, from medicine, was THE important contribution of the Greeks (Hippocrates) to the world. The rest, come later.

Conner wants to dismiss or undermine major contributions done by ancient Greek scientists, just because they might had been rich, noble, upper-class, etc, or because their contributions did not result to directly and immediately improving poor peoples lives. Why should one's scientific contributions be rated in view of his class, personality, etc?
Should we also dismiss the whole body of Theoretical Physics, because it
doesn't directly give something useful to ordinary engineers, mechanics, carpenters, etc? Also, Conner's claim that Greek science (whatever they didn't "steal" from Africans) was overall damaging to the world, since taken for granted and unquestioned (that science) the Middle Ages scientists did not improve upon it, at least it could be characterized as a joke. It is certainly not the Greeks fault that religious blindness, oppression, and misery in the Dark Ages did not allow scientists to improve upon the ideas of Greek scientists (who, of course, they were not perfect).

Now, of course, the saddest thing in this book is that for Conner to justify his pretty much unjustifiable claims regarding the unoriginal, useless, etc, of Greek science, he ends up relying on unhistorical, unscientific, totally DEBUNKED, and ridiculous references like M. Bernal's "Black Athena". Considering his otherwise good references, his relying on Bernal's book to justify his claims against the Greeks (which most scholars reject), was an unfortunate event.

This book should not be thought as comparable to "A People's History of the US", by H. Zinn, an otherwise very good book. The title might mislead one to think that just because the latter was good, that the former is as good too. It is not the case. Also, they examine different things: one examines the history of a 200 year old country, where the other examines a 2000 year old (or more) activity. Justifiably, though, concerns could be raised on Zinn's position (if not on his book above) as he is the only commentator of Conner's book (on the back cover), claiming that is actually a good book.

Nevertheless, ignoring its un-historicity and bias, it is a well written book. I would recommend it ONLY to critical and careful readers.


Dr. Michael Aristidou
WA

Being of a generally socialist bent, I am very sympathetic to the project of "people's histories", ever since it was conceived by A.L. Morton's excellent A people's history of England, but that does not mean that we should be uncritical towards what is actually written. Not just Howard Zinn's prototype book (People's History of the United States: 1492 to Present) in the modern series should be evaluated with care, but this goes as well for other books in this series, including this one, the "People's History of Science" by Clifford Conner.

Conner's thesis is that although the history of science has often been portrayed in the usual "Great Men" style as the work of a privileged few brilliant men (and yes, almost only men) seeing further than anyone elses and inventing wondrous new sciences and technologies, in reality most of established academia during the ages was of no value whatever, and real scientific progress resulted through the experiments and practice of artisans, painters, miners, etc., not through the academic thinking of the learned.
Tracing a chronology of technological development, Conner gives a convincing if not entirely open-and-shut case for this thesis, in particular when it comes to demonstrating the great advances in science made by the lowly and unacademic during the ancient periods as well as the Middle Ages and the Renaissance. Equally, Conner gives women and non-Europeans their due, quite correctly emphasizing the large advances in technology made by the Chinese, the Native American societies, the Arabs, and so on, often ages before any European ever conceived of the thought. Conner does this quite well, in the process also repudiating the popular view of the natives as the "noble savages living in communion with nature"; in reality the various Indian tribes were masters at the manipulation of nature to their advantage, such as forestry and the genetic selection of edible plants to improve agriculture.

However, this book also has clear and evident downsides. Conner's own specialization seems to be in the history of science during the period of the Renaissance through the 18th-19th Centuries, for it is the chapters on this that are by far the best part of the book and particularly worth reading. On other subjects, however, he is much less informed. Especially the chapter on science in ancient Greece is woefully erroneous: Conner has bought completely into the oft-refuted theories of Martin Bernal, including even the slanderous commentary on Karl Otfried Müller, which even Bernal himself has since withdrawn. The entire "out of Africa" tendency of this chapter is as wrong and unscientific as that idea itself. But that's not all, since Conner's understanding of Plato is also horribly mangled, leading him to either ignore or completely misunderstand the possibly progressive elements in Plato's "Republic". For example, when discussing Plato's political views, Conner at no point even deems it worth mentioning that in Plato's ideal society men and women would have an equal opportunity to lead if worthy, surely a very revolutionary view in his time (compare it to Aristoteles!). He also does not understand Plato's conception of the various classes in his society, which are explicitly opposed to the idea of castes one are born into, unlike what Conner seems to assume. Conner even quotes Marx who refutes the point he is trying to make in that context.

I do not know enough about most of the other subjects Conner writes on without being specialized in them, like classical China, prehistoric societies, and so on, to judge whether that suffers from similar flaws, but at least if he gets these things that I do happen to know so horribly wrong, that bodes ill for the trustworthiness of the entire book. So do take his analysis with a grain of salt at all times, and check the sources elsewhere. Additionally, the book contains many minor spelling errors and wrong expressions in foreign languages cited; not a big deal, but something a competent editor should have caught and removed.

On the whole, the book's chapters on the so-called Scientific Revolution are very good, and his commentaries on other historians of science are worth reading. His thesis is also sufficiently proven to be convincing, if not enough to be certain; it may be added though that he does not establish very well that the Great Men theory of the history of science is actually still supported by contemporary historians, making his case seem a bit obsolete. And his use of sources is very narrow and occasionally wholly incorrect at times, so be skeptical when reading.

From a seemingly inexhaustible warehouse of knowledge, documented to the nth degree, Clifford Conner shows the reader the people's side of knowledge called science. The book is very readable, accessible to lay persons of any age or educational attainment.It's the sort of book that will not sit quietly on a shelf, but one that will be returned to often as questions about the past arise.

To say that the scientific profession is removed from the "common" elements of society in that they are more intelligent, insightful, dispassionate, objective, and trustworthy is perhaps one of the most inaccurate historical (and scientific) myths that have permeated Western society. And to say that scientific or technological progress is due to a small number of "great" individuals (mostly men) throughout history is also completely unsubstantiated scientifically. It would take an enormous amount of research to substantiate either of these two beliefs, which, anecdotally speaking, seem to be held by a vast amount of people. Hero worship, the great men theory of history, and false imputations of genius occur in the scientific profession as they do in any others. For those interested in an accurate view of the history of science, these beliefs must be subjected to severe scrutiny. Intuitively, it would seem more accurate to believe that scientific ideas or even revolutions find their origins in many different people, some of who have chosen to not engage in scholarship, but have instead used these ideas because of their value in practical application.

But if some ideas, or indeed most, are the result of anonymous individuals, this would be of course be difficult to prove, because of the lack of historical records. The author of this book therefore has a difficult job, for he wants to show that it was the common people, the `miners, midwives, and low mechanicks' that were primarily responsible for scientific advances. But `the people' did not write down their contributions, and so any credit to be granted to them will have to find its origin in the statements and writings of those who interacted with them.

The author has done a fair job in his attempt to substantiate this claim, but there are many places in the book where he displays an anger that is best left out of an objective, professional study. His politics is definitely to the left end of the spectrum, and he interjects various politically charged statements at various places in the book. In addition, he has a somewhat bizarre condemnation of the profit motive, considering this book itself would not have appeared in print if it were not for those who are motivated by profits.

Readers will be exposed to assertions that are very different from the ones they perhaps grew up with. Even if these assertions are not factual, they could still encourage critical thinking on the part of these readers. There is some very interesting content in the book, with appropriate references given. One will learn for example that the first oil well was drilled using techniques that were imported from China. Indeed, the author spends an entire section on the contributions to modern science from `Chinese artisans.' In addition, the author asserts that "Henry the Navigator" did not in fact arrive at any knowledge of navigation by himself but merely purchased it. Many, many other interesting discussions can be found in the book, some of which are "radical." Those who do not wish their cognitive equilibrium disturbed should avoid reading this book.

The author also wants to fast forward to the current situation in scientific research circles. When reading this part of the book one can perhaps take a more relaxed notion of evidence and argue that there is plenty of anecdotal evidence to suggest that there are severe problems in the halls of academia, that the predominant emotion there is envy, that there is more joules of energy expended on infighting than there is on research, that patronage and favoritism governs promotions rather than competence, that thesis advisors take credit for the ideas of their students, and that many of its members are so hypersensitive to criticism that reviews of their work must be done anonymously lest the reviewer be subjected to unrelenting criticism and pressure. But this reviewer knows of no scientific study that would corroborate this (anecdotal) evidence. Such a study would be of great interest to those interested in the sociology and psychology of scientific research, and to those young people who are interested in entering the scientific profession. But even if these attitudes were shown to be characteristic of the majority of academia, the fact remains that some individuals, be they famous or completely unknown, be they in academia or industry or in a garage, are responsible for the incredible rate of scientific and technological advance in the twenty-first century. These individuals whether they be `scholars' or `craftsman', and whether they documented their efforts or not, are certainly greatly appreciated, and they have left an immutable mark on history, whether this was their intent or not.

This book purports to simultaneously correct the mainstream history of science, highlighting the contribution of unlettered craftsmen, sailors, folk healers and non-Westerners to its development, and criticize science for being subservient to the interests of the ruling classes and complicit in their crimes. There is an inherent contradiction between these goals, which Conner does not notice. If medicine is forever tainted by the infection of Chinese and Allied POWs with lethal bacteria done by the Japanese doctors, then who cares if folk healers contributed to its development? If labor-saving devices saved the employers' labor expenses rather than the employees' labor, who cares if they were invented by illiterate mechanics?

Conner does not seem to know mathematics, given that he does not understand the difference between Babylonian and Egyptian mathematics and Greek mathematics, claiming that the "Greek miracle" is an artifact of racist scholars who did not want to give due credit to non-"Aryan" peoples. Nor does he seem to know medicine, given that he praises homeopathy and hydropathy, which challenged medical orthodoxy, which in turn dismissed them as unscientific. He also criticizes the French academicians who dismissed Mesmerism as a fraud, and notes that psychoanalysts trace modern psychotherapy back to Mesmer. What does this guy know? An Internet search shows that he is a dilettante. Or is it elitist of me to label him as such, as the doctors were elitist to dismiss the folk healers?

Clifford D. Conner's book provides an eye-opening, refreshing and in some respects quite controversial account of how science has developed over the centuries. His focus has been not on the handful of names that are so well-known in each field of science, but on the many little-known or anonymous researchers, inventors and innovators who made equally important important -- and sometimes greater -- contributions to humanity's understanding of nature.

For some time now, the way political history is taught in schools and textbooks has started to move away from the old "great man" approach that privileges the top generals and officeholders and ignores the contributions of the many ordinary people who actually brought about change. There is still a long way to go before the study of history loses its elitist bias, but a good number of historians are now seeking to uncover the "hidden histories" of the poor and the marginalized, without whom the leading figures would have been able to accomplish very little. Unfortunately, teaching and writing about the history of science has not yet progressed so far. It is still studded with the accounts of individual and identifiable "geniuses" who made stunning breakthroughs.

Conner makes a laundable effort to correct that imbalance. He demonstrates convincingly that some of the breakthroughs commonly identified with certain individuals were actually made earlier by others. He shows that the process of scientific advancement has been a far more collective effort than we have been led to believe. And he argues strongly that future historians of science should go further than he himself is able to do in such a general overview, in order to throw light on how the history of medicine, botany, physics or some other specific scientific field might benefit from a similar "people's history" perspective.

Conner's emphasis is important not only in terms of history, that is, the understanding of how scientific knowledge has developed from the past. It also contributes to current debates about contemporary scientific practice. In today's Africa, for example, development experts highlight how vital it is for the continent to overcome the "scientific divide" if agricultural productivity, health and general well-being are to progress beyond their currently poor levels. But which science should Africa utilize? Only that which is patented and sold at high cost by Western corporations? Or also that which is created and practiced every day by African farmers, artisans, healers, herbalists, chemists and innovators? "Science as it exists today," Conner argues, "was created out of folk and artisanal sources; it became what it is by drawing heavily on those sources." Some international financial institutions, such as the World Bank, have already begun to acknowledge that such "indigenous knowledge" can make an essential contribution to Africa's development, in conjunction with world scientific expertise. (Conner, incidentially, shows that such global scientific understanding has itself been enriched over the centuries by the work of numerous Africans.)

Conner's insights, documented detail and substantive arguments would be reason enough to pick up this book. But it is also very well written, in clear and understandable terms. It is a history of science that can be easily read by non-scientists. I highly recommend it.

This book systematically exposes the pseudo-history of science that we are all taught. From the beginnings of science in hunter-gatherer society, through the beginning of the industrial revolution, Clifford D. Connor's work exposes the roots of science in the economic necessity of daily life, and its progress though centuries of trial and error punctuated my moments of brilliance. It is based on primary sources and the consultation of authorities like J.D. Bernal and forgotten historians like Edgar Zilsel.

He busts very common "creation" myths by simply referring to the work of the supposed creator, who more often than not makes mention of the source of his discoveries. For example, he quotes from Herodotus, Plato and Strabo to show the origins of Greek culture, science and technology in Egypt.

Conner's book provides evidence not only for a rethinking of who the prime movers of science have been, the doers not the thinkers, but also shows how throughout history the knowledge of the lower classes have been expropriated and re-appropriated by those who rule.

He traces the roots of the modern scientific establishment back to the appropriation of the empirical methods of the artisans by the academics who overcame their social prejudice in order to provide answers to the problems of an emergent capitalist economy.

The work degenerates into vignettes after discussing the origins of the steam engine, and it is up to another researcher to apply Connor's method to the industrial era.

Additionally, I remain unconvinced of his perspective on medicine, but being no expert myself, I withhold judgment.

Every review on here who is disputing his specific views regarding the Greeks, etc. ignore the more basic truths which he decisively demonstrates and it is these which are ultimately more important.

His basic point has been expressed before, and expressed much better. Nobody has argued since Carlyle in the Great Man theory of history. (Of course books like this need a straw man to knock down rather than a real opponent--thus books like this criticize a "conventional" history that resembles books from the 1950s rather than what is taught now.)

His problem is that he uncritically regurgitates any theory that will appeal to any left-wing interest group. Thus, he simply takes Bernal's dated 1980s Afrocentrism. Even the FAR left generally ignores the bloated, multivolume "black athena". Greeks are cardboard cutout villains, unlike the magic special Africans and Middle Easterners, and stole every accomplishment that is worth anything. REALITY CHECK--look at the Muslim Arabic sources from c7th century to the 12th century--they support the positive claims of the Greeks, and quite a bit of what we know about the Greeks comes from Arab sources. Much of the modern left derives its ideas and theories from them, however elitist and sexist they were (like every other ancient civilization.) Check out, amongst other books, "The Classical Heritage in Islam" by Franz Rosenthal. Why have a serious discussion of the issue of how wealthy, sexist elites dominated societies everywhere in antiquity and took credit for the inventions of the people when you can just throw slurs at the Greeks?

Clifford Conner shows us what we have to about the history of science through observing the actions and learned practices of the working classes throughout history.