Customer Reviews

The Scientific Revolution (science.culture)

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

 

 

I am amazed by the review written by the reader from Sydney. This book does not pretend to give a chronological narrative of who did what when in the making of modern science. There are many books that do that job. Instead, Shapin is interested in what difference the Scientific Revolution made to how people at the time, and how we, think about the natural world. The major changes may have been the new idea that nature could be investigated and understood, not merely regarded with awe and fear; that careful, repeatable experiments could yield information about how nature works; and that this new approach to nature changed how human beings regarded our relation to the natural world and our place in it. If nature is something that we can explore and understand, then we have a new power; we are no longer on a par with the natural world, because we can see into it. The ways in which knowledge is acquired, or made, and why it matters that we pursue and develop this knowledge are part of Shapin's central theme. These are not small questions, and to my mind they are addressed elegantly in this short but very substantial book.

Shapin opens his 'Scientific Revolution' with the paradoxical statement, "there was no such thing as the Scientific Revolution, and this is a book about it." Shapin proceeds to use the next 150 or so pages to explain himself. The book is firmly structured in three sections, addressing the what, how, and why of scientific knowledge in the seventeenth century; the contents of each section are similarly well-structured, but seem to discuss more than the simple titles suggest. Examining the very foundations of scientific thought and the manner in which the modern distinction between legitimate science and voodoo came about, Shapin uses the Scientific Revolution as a venue for introducing his and other scholars' views on both the essential nature of modern science and the way in which ideas evolve. Explanatory notes where appropriate make the reading accessible to those unfamiliar with science history or philosophy.

I have studied science and the history of science for a long time. I taught experimental methodology at Emory University also. This book is a must-read for it's unique insights into the culture and mindset of the times when science arose and how it related to the politics of the era (revolutions, protestant reformation, and freedom etc.). I enjoyed how the author shows the relationship of religious ideas of the time to science -- they were reading the "other holy book" or "the book of nature" which was available for all to read.

An especially interesting aspect of this book for me was that at the end of it he shows that practical ideas or purposes were not the motive for the research that was done, and that much of the best practical applications of the research which was done around the 16-1700's did not come into play until much later -- hundreds of years later in many instances. The abstract pursuit of truth about the world, the reading of "the other holy book" was the thing. (I emphasize this aspect of science in my own book also)The Textbook of the Universe: The Genetic Ascent to God.

It also brings to light other important differences with other cultures -- such as why science never took off in asia before western ideas invaded over there. Oriental philosophy and thinking tends to be resolutely practical to the point that it could be considered a form of blindness for them. Their history of philosophy is filled with practical conundrums, not abstract theories of universal truths. They never had any individualistic freedom movements either. That difference is an extremely important insight into the western impetus to science. We did it naturally, and it was originally a fundamentally religious pursuit for us. The other main insight in this book is that our urges for freedom and individualism were bound up inextricably with our desire to read the "book of nature". This is the core of western thinking in general which gave rise to science. It defines us. I can think of no greater insight to the nature of western European thinking than this. Science, freedom, individualism, and our natural ideas of religion -- they go together.

I have read no other book that illustrates and elucidates this supremely important point and foundation of science better than this one little book. It is small, but it is a powerhouse. Other than that, it is a great read, hard to put down. Highly recommended for anyone interested in the scientific revolution.

Despite what Amazon indicates above, I am not reviewing a Kindle Edition, but rather the paperback edition.

I guess I should have been prepared for the limited scope of this work when I saw that it is composed in only three chapters and a concluding bibliographic essay. But having just finished it, I feel disappointed.

So much more could have been done with the concept. I originally rated this with two stars, but realized later that I was rating what I hoped the book would be, rather than what it was. So I'll add a few modifying comments before expressing my disappointment. Shapin does a good job of setting the social and intellectual stage for the growth and development of natural philosophy out of the Scholastic philosophy of Aristotle and Aquinas. He also introduces an interesting comparison between natural philosophy and natural history and builds on it throughout the book. And he uses quotations extensively even though he provides no citation tools for tracking the quotes down. For all we know he could have been making them up.

The author's apparent purpose is to link three ideas: What was natural philosophy, how was it done and what was it done for (hence the three chapter format)? Rather than a full-blown history of the mythical scientific revolution, he synthesizes modern revisionist history to tell us primarily what the scientific revolution was not. Given this understanding, the author admirably achieves his goal.

The scope of this book is far more limited than I was anticipating or desiring. His discussion of 17th century players is very limited. Again, he warned me in the Introduction, but maybe his warning should have been stronger. In retrospect I see that he deals extensively with only Galileo, Bacon, Descartes, Boyle, and Newton. He introduces many others, such as Hooke, and Hobbes but only in supportive and passing sorts of ways.

The author disarticulates the scientific revolution, but in my opinion fails to rearticulate it in the end. I feel like I'm back in my first year of medical school, standing over the remains of a cadaver in gross anatomy. We've taken it apart to try to learn about its parts, but what is missing is any discussion of why it holistically has such an impact on modern science and society. I expected more. His final paragraph says: "Science remains whatever it is....I doubt very much whether science needs to be defended through perpetuating fables and myths cobbled together to pour value over it." But what is it? How did it develop? How did it become the overarching paradigm of western culture? The author answers none of these important questions. He leaves the impression that all science has going for it are "fables and myths." Debunking is important where bunk is rife. But science is not bunk, and I feel that the author stopped too soon. He fails to make the transition into any unified sense of what science is, and how it really developed.

He did not continue is history to the point of establishing modern science. He makes reference to Newton's Principia as bringing "natural philosophy to perfection" (p. 157) but leaves the chapter in a long discussion of the theism of his favorite players. His focus was on the "early modern" period. I'm now left wondering how science got from where he left it (dead and dismembered on the table) to the science I practice. I found myself turning the final page asking: "Is that it?" There remains a huge gap between where he ends, and where science as we know it today begins.

I guess I should have been looking for a book titled "The Origins of Modern Science" or something like that, because what I thought I was getting is not what I got. In fact, I have a book by that title on my shelf by Herbert Butterfield which Shapin classifies as "traditional scholarship." But I went with Shapin because Butterfield was published in 1957 and I wanted more contemporary scholarship. Looks like I'll now go back and read Butterfield after all, so I can "acquaint myself with the identity of the Scientific Revolution, and with its major actors, themes, problems, achievements, and conceptual resources" (Shapin, p. 168). Funny! That is why I bought Shapin in the first place.

I wish that Shapin had cited his major quotations in a more user-friendly way. He includes a bibliographic essay at the end where he references scholarship by topic, but not sources by page or citation. It makes tracking his quotations so painful. I found myself constantly flipping back and forth trying to find where a particular quote might have come from. But it was so difficult that I finally gave up. I wish that he had given good citations in a more standardized format. This work is clearly not for students seeking connection to the literature. Scholarly journals may be esoteric, but at least their sources are easily traceable. Such is not the case here.

If you are looking for a thorough introduction to the origins of modern science, then this book is not what you want. Read Butterfield or one of the other "traditional sources" he mentions in the bibliogrphic essay. Don't get me wrong, I marked the hell out of my copy (though I do wish that he had written more about William Harvey). I guess my mistake was in using this source as an introduction to the founding and growth of modern science. That is not what this book is about. It is a focused essay on "The Individual Natural Philosophies of Several 17th Century Gentlemen." But I guess a title like that wouldn't sell many books.

An interesting book about the Scientific Revolution that didn't happen (according to the author). After reading it, I have to say I agree with him. Unfortunately, I never warmed up to the author's writing style. It has three long chapters. Shapin explains what was known back in the 1700s, how it was known and what knowledge was for. He pretty much knocks secular humanists off their pedestal without ever really addressing them.

Shapin's treatment of the Scientific Revolution addresses the change in intellectual outlook and thought than in the cascading series of discoveries that cross-pollinated and germanated into the modern, secular, humanist world-view that has defined the West since the 16th century. In this regard, his book warrants five stars. Beginning with an examination of Europe in the later Renaissance (mid-16th century), Shapin shows just how radical and revolutionary the ideas furthered by Gallileo, Descartes, Bacon and Boyle, Pascal and Newton were. This was the strongest part of the book.

The process of discovery, the intellectual obstacles these scientists faced and the impact of their work made was rather drily explained, as Shapin is more concenred with the broader attitude that these men represented than the singular impact of their ideas on science and the foundation they laid for the disciplines of astronomy, mathematics, engineering, physics, and the coming machine age. Yet even with this, I would have rated the book four stars. I was most powerfully agrieved, though, by his utter lack of discussion of mathematics. I am at a loss of how one can discuss this intellectual movement without mention of Leibnitz and Newton's quantification and mathematical proofs on which most of the era's scientific discoveries rest. For that, I had to deduct a star.

It is a good introduction to the time period, I'd even go so far to say the first thrid of the book is outstanding. Clearly, however, I have issues and reservations with Shapin's treatment of some of the tremendous minds of the time.

The Scientific Revolution represented a profound change in the way that we try to understand nature. The influence of science today, and its prestite, is pervasive. So this is an interesting topic. But Shapin's book is only an introduction. You'll get some names (Boyle, Galileo, Descartes, Bacon, Newton) and some interesting quotes and summaries of their thought. The issues of experiment, measurement and mathematization are treated. But none of it is in much depth. You won't learn any of the specifics of Copernicus, Galileo or Newton. If this is your first intro to the subject, it's fine. But for someone like me who already has somewhat of a background, most of this was stuff I already knew. It's well written, easy to read and has somewhat of a critical perspective, which is nice. But it's somewhat superficial and shallow. But it serves it purpose, I suppose.

Greg Feirman (gfire77@yahoo.com)

Perhaps the best, concise review by an established scholar. Worth it for the first chapter alone, which reviews the intellectual background and the philosophy of the revolution.

If you are looking for an account of the complex chain of events, discoveries and philosophies leading to the emergence of the modern scientific worldview, this is the wrong book. It is heavily influenced by post-modernist views, whereas science is seen as a "discourse" no more or less valid than "alternative" modes of knowledge. Since this is plainly incorrect, the book fits the facts to the Procustean bed of "theory" to support its thesis. For instance, never is the book is the development of Calculus mentioned, clearly an essential step in the development of classical mechanics and the foundation of most modern scientific theories. The same may be said for countless other developments which are cavalierly ignored. There was a scientific revolution and its effects are all around us, including the medium on which this review is written.

I was really looking forward to reading this book after several warm recommendations, but I was sadly disappointed. The contents was reasonable giving, but the language and the presentation...
I give it..
4 for contents,
2 for language and grammar,
2 for presentation and structure.
Hmmm. 8 divided by 3 is... 2.6. No, that's more than it deserves.