Revolutionizing the Sciences: European Knowledge and Its Ambitions, 1500-1700 (Paperback)

~ (Author)

Editorial Reviews

Amazon.com Review

Where did science come from? Somehow, the abstract reasoning of the ancient Greeks turned into a multibillion-dollar knowledge-farming industry, and the tipping point between the two holds endless fascination. Historian of science Peter Dear examines the transitional period in detail in the slim Revolutionizing the Sciences. It was designed as a textbook, but its organization should appeal to general readers as well. Dense but accessible, Dear's prose encourages the reader to abandon preconceptions about medieval and Renaissance scientific understanding and investigation. Dear hopes to show that the Scientific Revolution, though vitally important, was actually a natural development from preceding philosophical thinking, and his arguments are compelling.

... the picture of a superstitious and credulous Europe in 1500 giving way, by 1700, to a cool, rationalistic, scientific Europe continues to have a strong hold on our views of the past. The astrology, demonology, and so forth of fifteenth-century figures [...] were ingredients of the intellectual ferment of the next couple of centuries; they were not philosophical negatives of a new rationality that would sweep them away.

Though the book focuses more on physical sciences than biology and medicine, this serves the author well, as the metascientific advances of the period were concentrated within astronomy, physics, and mathematics. Even those readers without grade pressure will find that careful scrutiny pays off well; Dear includes a huge list of resources to follow up with after finishing this work of necessarily limited scope. Revolutionizing the Sciences offers a broad perspective on how modern--and even postmodern--science came to be, and for that it deserves wide attention. --Rob Lightner

Review

[Dear] throws interesting light on the changing criteria used to evaluate natural knowledge, especially the increasing emphasis on experiment. . . . As a full and accurate account of such matters, this book is the best available, and I would recommend it to anyone. -- Review

See all Editorial Reviews

Product Details

• Paperback: 208 pages
• Publisher: Princeton University Press (April 1, 2001)
• Language: English
• ISBN-10: 0691088608
• ISBN-13: 978-0691088600
• Product Dimensions: 9.1 x 6.1 x 0.6 inches
• Shipping Weight: 11.2 ounces (View shipping rates and policies)
• Average Customer Review: 4.0 out of 5 stars  See all reviews (2 customer reviews)
• Amazon.com Sales Rank: #596,209 in Books (See Bestsellers in Books)

Customer Reviews

Most Helpful Customer Reviews

6 of 6 people found the following review helpful:

5.0 out of 5 stars very good for purpose , October 4, 2008

By	Senna777 "cartfan" (california) - See all my reviews

This book is quite short for the topic. However, its purpose is to familiarize one with the scientific revolution. It does a good job pointing out the system of thought prior to the Scientific Revolution and how it evolved up to Newton. The book is perfect for an upper division course on the scientific revolution. However, due to the concise nature of the book, it should be used as a general background to the era or movement--which it is for the course I am taking. Dear spent some time addressing most key figures during the era, and produced a good starting text for those who do not have any background on the topic. It is well written and easily read.

I would suggest this text to all history majors, and also to those who are interested in the scientific revolution.

2 of 4 people found the following review helpful:

3.0 out of 5 stars Barely adequate, July 6, 2009

By	Viktor Blasjo - See all my reviews (REAL NAME)

This is a barely adequate survey text. There are many imperfections, of which I shall note a few.

It is claimed that the scientific revolution was based on a resurrection of mathematics from the "pure" and inapplicable. For example: "Galileo and other mathematicians rejected the disciplinary boundary between natural philosophy and mathematics by arguing that mathematics was crucially important in drawing legitimate physical conclusions." (p. 73). "This is where Galileo is such a useful figure" (p. 72). Who ever ever tried to uphold this "disciplinary boundary"? No one is named; there is no quotation or reference, other than generic talk of "Aristotelians," the perpetual villains who are never specified. Similarly, the foolish distinction between "pure" and "mixed" mathematics is also called "Aristotelian" (p. 17). There is no reference to Aristotle for the simple reason that there is none. Aristotle never made such a nonsensical division, nor did anyone with half a brain. The terms in fact originate with Bacon and were invented for his specific propaganda purposes. But Dear swallows it uncritically as absolute truth. Dear is right that "all revolutions are revolution against something" (p. 3), but he fails to consider the possibility that the revolution defines itself against a straw man.

Dear claims that "Kepler responded to the challenge [of Tycho's system] by producing models that could be expressed in Ptolemaic, Copernican, or Tychonic terms" (pp. 76-77). This is complete nonsense. There are no such models. Kepler discussed the three systems only once, in the early part of the Astronomia Nova, solely for the explicit purpose of rejecting the unwanted ones, because the latter parts (to which the first part necessarily lead) of the book are completely inconsistent with those views.

More nonsense occurs in the case of Newton: "Leibniz, Huygens, and other continental philosophers such as Régis had reacted critically when Newton published the Principia in 1687. Their main objections amounted to dismissing the pretensions of Newton's book: rather than presenting a true work on natural philosophy, Newton had simply presented mathematical descriptions dressed up as natural philosophy [in not providing an explanation for gravity]." (p. 164). What are these "pretensions" that are being "dismissed"? Not a single word of the Principia was being so dismissed. In fact Newton shared these views exactly (p. 163). Only a poor historian who is indoctrinated with clichés can manage to see a conflict and "dismissal" where there is in fact perfect agreement.