Histoire Populaire des Sciences

by Clifford D. Conner

Une histoire, du néolithique à aujourd'hui, des savoirs établis par les chasseurs-cueilleurs, les petits paysans, les marins, les mineurs, les forgerons et tant d'autres qui devaient assurer leur subsistance au contact quotidien de la nature. Ainsi l'auteur raconte comment la médecine ou les mathématiques sont apparus, et évoque le basculement du XIXe siècle, marquant le début de la technoscience.

Genres: Science, History, Nonfiction, History Of Science, Medicine, Science Nature, Technology

559 pages, Paperback

First published January 1, 2005

Reviews

[Mahdi Lotfi · Rating 3 out of 5]

کلیفورد کانر در کتاب تاریخ علم مردم روایت دیگری از تاریخ علم ارائه می‌دهد که متفاوت است با آنچه پیش‌تر خوانده‌ایم و تکیه بر قهرمان‌هایی همچون نیوتن و فیثاغورس و گالیله و... دارد. او در این روایت به سهم توده‌های گمنام مردم در تولید و نشر علم می‌پردازد. کانر در آغاز به سراغ دوران قبل از تاریخ می‌رود و می‌پرسد آیا انسان شکارچی ـ‌گیاه‌چین کودن بود؟ سپس ایده‌ی «معجزه‌ی یونانی» را بررسی می‌کند و از علم در چین و مصر همان دوران سخن می‌گوید. دریانوردی شاخه‌ی علمی دیگری است که کانر به آن می‌پردازد و نشان می‌دهد چگونه شاهزادگان پرتغالی تجربه‌های دریانوردان را می‌خریدند. فصل پنجم درباره‌ی انقلاب علمی و پایه‌های مردمی آن است و فصل‌ ششم به اتحاد علم و سرمایه می‌پردازد. کانر در فصل آخر کتاب به علم و پیشرفت‌های علمی در قرن بیستم بحث کرده است.

[Ushan · Rating 2 out of 5]

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?

[Chris Kaeff · Rating 5 out of 5]

Science has always been a collective endeavor of the folk, ever since way back when. It's not a form of knowledge bestowed upon us by giants with elite minds, elite cultures, and elite technologies. It springs forth from the work of the people. Except for Newton of course...

In the beginning was the word. -St. John

In the beginning was the word?
No, in the beginning was the deed. -Goethe

[Revanth Ukkalam · Rating 3 out of 5]

As an addict of Telugu media, I found the notable civil activist Kancha Ilaiah Shepherd's interviews difficult to miss. He gasconaded about whom he considered the real scientists and engineers of India - the Shudras. As against the Vaishyas - the merchants and the highly elitist Brahmins, the Shudras and untouchables had made astounding contributions, the barber's blade and the butcher's knife and so on. What then had the Brahmins done - Aryabhatta, Kanada, and Shushruta and suchlike? Ilaiah would respond to this, fairly instinctively that they were rationalisers, men who cooked up abstractions and thinkers who did little engagement with the actual world. Conner shows in this decisively provocative book that Faust had echoed similar ideas and responded to the Gospel - in the beginning was the deed.

That in short is Clifford Conner's thesis in his subaltern version of science's history. He seeks to show how the love for drawing principles in explaining the natural world, that inescapable platonic want might be fine but categorically impossible without working with materials. And who works with materials? - the workers of course, Plato's producers and Marx's proletarians. The scientists and the other hand were elites with much leisure. Conner's is not an entirely chronological history. He focuses on particular junctures in science (or as we are told in western historiography) and important theses that have been posited and tries to offer antitheses to them and in some cases, nuance the thesis itself to give voice to the suppressed.

These moments are broadly: the neolithic revolution (is it the agricultural societies that are inclined to be scientists?), the Greeks (all natural philosophy and science emerged from Hella we are told), the age of exploration (does Henry the Navigator really deserve the epithet?), the Scientific Revolution and aftermath (was it a revolution and as he asks who was victorious - a question that is usually levelled against the French revolution), industry and capitalism (Marx and the chartists may come in), the present.

It is an uneven history in that Conner is interested in earlier periods than post-enlightenment developments. For instance, he comes in defence of the hunter-gatherer. The hunter-gatherer has his own sciences and technologies. The Amerindians apparently had an indigenous study of cartography and cosmology. That had had an independent cure to scurvy and could even cure small pox. He furnishes great details from very many studies of different extinct civilisations and surviving 'primitive societies'. In the Greek realm of course, he has the archenemy of his thesis - Plato making dismissal very easy. He finds to the Greeks as alternatives Arabs (but they too held as their grandfather, Aristotle an elitist to be sure) and to them the Hindus and to all, the Chinese. The Chinese to his fortune had recorded some of its smiths and weavers (he ignores consciously, characters like Eratosthenes and Archimedes). He is perhaps most convincing in the chapter on navigation. How could one prince have taught a whole nation of sailors to fare in the open sea? Is the very thought of the assassination of a long legacy of sailing to the sea utterly preposterous? In the Early Modern, Aristotle's descendant is Francis Bacon. Bacon had not just prioritised the collaboration of scientists but put the workers on silent. So Galileo forgot to give credit to the small time engineer who made the lens for his telescope and Vesalius, the engravers and artists who were the underbelly of the renaissance. The other assassination Conner argues Bacon does is give power to the mad voices which accused women of witchcraft and hunted them. How on earth is Bacon, a man funded by James I, be a prophet of reason and a paradigm that he conceived, a revolution? He also conceives in the struggle of sciences, along with classes, politics. Had the diggers won, would the miners have gotten credit? Would Paracelsus who re-envisioned metallurgy in the context of medicine have taken the status of Edward Jenner? Had Rousseau triumphed over the Bonapartists, would romantics have won over George Cuvier and the Academy that placed cold rationality over humanism?

Conner leaves eventually the reader with some mind-boggling facts, anecdotes about some fascinating figures (look up Hugh Plat guys!) and yet too many questions for his thesis to be complete and opens up too many roadways perhaps to make even the thesis confused.

I don't know why I wrote such a long review.

[Viral · Rating 4 out of 5]

3.5, rounded up to 4 for Goodreads.

I have many thoughts about this book.

I've been meaning to read it for quite a while now, and I saw it in a CPL branch several months ago and decided why not? Then I had so many other books to read to so this fell to the wayside. I've finally caught up with it, and it wasn't quite the slam dunk I was hoping for.

Conner's does a great job outlining a very provocative and interesting claim: that the root of most of modern science was in the works of working class artisans and trades folks, not in intellectuals whose names we've all be taught in school. I think he does a great job showing in various fields that various technological developments and skilled trades methodologies were crucial for these grand names to develop the theories we all know them for. Newton wasn't standing on the shoulders of giants; he stood on the shoulders of thousands of forgotten normal people.

I think where this book really lacks is a cohesive vision of what this should mean for both the telling of the history of science today as well as how folks should approach science today. I was hoping for more points in that direction, but that was unfortunately lacking. Still an interesting book, but definitely a long and repetitive one.

[Dave · Rating 4 out of 5]

I was considering reading Neil deGrasse Tyson's Accessory to War last week. I felt like I could use a refresher on scientific history but didn't want something that just praises this stuff. Kind of figured Tyson wasn't the best choice for that perspective so that led me to this one instead. While it does discuss the darker side of science (environmental destruction, experiments that require torture, advancements that make it easier for privileged minorities to control ever larger societies, etc.) his main focus is on giving the little guys credit for their contributions to these discoveries. By doing so it still does feel like he's glorifying these things, which makes it a little strange. There are other points made about the topic that are useful to think about, like how the snobbish scholars tend to want to preserve the status quo when it benefits them, making them conservative "retarders" of progress, while the crafty artisans usually want to adopt changes quickly since their lives are the ones that would most clearly benefit. Similarly, he has a ton of criticisms against capitalism but points out the role the profit motive has had in speeding up discoveries. It's just funny how one minute it'll sound like he's against something then the next sound like he's for it.

His conclusion basically calls for a "democratization of science." If the rich continue to control everything, we're doomed. If "the people" take control back then we have a chance of allowing our knowledge to benefit everyone. It's a pretty good message. Unfortunately he refuses to acknowledge the INHERENT destructiveness of modern lifestyles. The damage isn't just a result of how we use technology. This stuff can't even be made in the first place without causing extreme damage. I'd argue that even at a much reduced scale this is true because we'd lose the efficiency gains that come from mass production. It's just not an impressive way for him to end what was otherwise a pretty good book. I'm almost impressed that he even mentioned things like deep ecology but he kind of ruins it by throwing in the argument that it would be genocidal since low-tech lifestyles can't support the current human population.

There's nothing fair about that argument. No consideration for a gentle transition strategy that wouldn't require killing anybody, no acknowledgement that continuing on our current path will most likely kill even more people than the most violent transition would since population is still growing while the planet gets closer and closer to being totally uninhabitable. It's pretty hard to ignore. Since that idea takes up less than one page of the book though I am basically just letting that go. I still think this is worth reading for a contrasting view on scientific progress. Just wish he'd ended it a little smarter. There are some dated ideas in the book too, especially in the early anthropological chapters but again, it's not enough to ruin it.

[Mike Opferman · Rating 3 out of 5]

I really liked the first half of this book. I learned a lot about the development of technology in the ancient world such as agriculture, navigation, and medicine. He comes on a bit strong with his political views, but there's a lot of really interesting stuff that is worth reading.

I was ready to give the book a 5 star rating, but as it started to get closer and closer to modern times, I started to get more and more annoyed with the book. Not only do the politics of the book become even more overt and self-reflexive--there are significant portions of the book which are the history of the history of science--but the author doesn't seem to have any clear definition of science as opposed to pseudo-science. In fact, he seems philosophically opposed to such a distinction on the grounds that it is elitist. I was flabbergasted when he included a section about mesmerism and animal magnetism and seemed to treat them as legitimate (along with a number of other dubious theories), and I was angry when he gave information about some modern topics like nuclear power which are popular myths but total nonsense.

My other beef is that he seems to say that elite scientists always put theory before experiment but that in reality experiment never comes after theory. Neither of these is true. It is extremely common in modern science for theory and experiment to feed off of each other mutually, sometimes one coming first and sometimes the other. You can definitely tell more and more as the book goes on that the author is a historian rather than a scientist.

[Hannah Lulu · Rating 5 out of 5]

Very thoughtful and well researched and I'm in gratitude for the anti-colonialist paradigm. After reading some rather defensively critical reviews I have to say that I think some readers miss the point. This book does not invalidate the tomes of scholarly scientific research as we know it, but it does serve to switch the paradigm of colonialism that dismisses the oppressed as dimwitted. He highlights the obvious yet unseen genius of countless scientific and technological accomplishments and innovations of people across the globe and throughout history, whose names, insights, and accomplishments have been steamrolled out of history books and sometimes out of use by the heavy handed conquerors whose exploits have usually prevailed through force and not through merit.

[Devin · Rating 2 out of 5]

I love history and I love science but I can't say I loved this book. It had some very interesting information but it felt too much like a dissertation mixed with an editorial. I think the premise of the book is great and the author kept my attention well in some parts, but it just got boring in too many places. Maybe its for people who specialize in this type of social history and maybe I expected something else, but I moved on without finishing it.

[Mackenzie Moyer · Rating 5 out of 5]

This book was a smooth, profound read that’s had a huge impact on my thinking already. This book has wide-ranging implications for how we do and think about science, and what its historical trajectory has really been.

[Heather · Rating 3 out of 5]

Conner's main argument is that scientific "break-throughs" rest on the backs of unseen, often formally uneducated workers. Well, duh, Connor. Innovations in both applied and theoretical science do not occur in a vacuum, despite what the age of patents and intellectual property laws would have us believe. The history of science is no less prone to the mythologizing that frequently takes place in the hindsight of any examination of our collective past, and as such is not excused from the biases of individuals or dictates of social customs. I appreciate what Connor was trying to do here, but it often felt that instead of celebrating the often invisible and forgotten contributors to science, he spent the majority of the book demonizing the men that history, perhaps erroneously, gave all the credit to. True, some of the "great men" of science were schmucks, and it seems unjust that due to their higher social standing were the only ones capable of disseminating scientific knowledge. Again, I appreciate the perspective the author tries to give here, especially his attempts to include historically disenfranchised groups like women and people of color, into the history of science. So, while we can all agree that it sucks that rich, white men have almost always been the victors of any history, I still find his frequent dismissal of theory in favor of practical application troublesome. Ultimately, it seems to be an over-simplistic argument especially in light of the highly complicated intersection of science, history, and social theory. Although at times a bit disorganized, in particular the last couple of chapters, Connor does an impressive job of researching his subject. The passages about the evolving science of sailors finding their latitude at sea alone, make it a worthwhile read for the curious.

[Tevfik · Rating 2 out of 5]

Hayatımda çok ama çok az kitabı yarım bıraktım. Bu da onlardan birisi oldu. Bir popüler bilim kitabı gibi algılansa da çok sayıda tarihi detay çok farklı kaynaklardan sadece editöryel bir iş olarak bir araya getirilmiş ve popüler bilim okurundan ziyade bu alanda tarihi araştırma yapacaklar için bir kaynak kitap görevi görüyor.

Okuma kitabı değil diye düşük yıldız vermek ne kadar doğru bilmiyorum; ama bu puanı algılanışı, sunuşu ve gerçekte ne olduğuyla ilgili tutarsızlığına verdiğimi düşünebilirsiniz.

[Nick · Rating 1 out of 5]

Incredibly tedious trip though history reminding us that for every great man of science there were many others working behind the scenes.
As a work of scholarship, this book may be worthy, but it is definitely not entertaining reading, even for a science geek like me.

[Ashkan · Rating 5 out of 5]

اگرچه خود نیوتن می‌گفت «روی شانه‌های غول‌ها» نشسته که توانسته «دورترها» را ببیند، واقعیت این است که او از هزاران هزار صنعتگر بی‌سواد هم سواری گرفته‌بود

از صفحهٔ ۱۲، برگردان حسن افشار، چاپ اول ۱۳۹۰ نشر ماهی

[Gary · Rating 2 out of 5]

This book was ultimately very disappointing to me. However, before talking about the books problems, I'll highlight what I did like about this volume.

Conner provides a large number of wide ranging examples which, by themselves, are genuinely interesting. Most of his examples are items that are not well-known outside of a few highly specialized scholarly circles. I especially enjoyed his detailed discussion of the navigational techniques of the Polynesian islanders, and how it demonstrated such an incredibly careful set of observations, and effective rules of thumb that allowed these people to successfully navigate the Pacific ocean. The book as a whole is a trove of such interesting examples that I struggled for a long time to get past the deeply problematic issues with the book and simply enjoy those descriptions.

But in the end, the problematic issues won out. The most generic of these is that the author really has no idea what science is, and so offers a string of logically and historically disconnected examples that are all supposed to demonstrate early "scientific" thinking. But the phrase I used above -- and which I used quite deliberately -- was "rules of thumb." No collection of such rules, regardless of how many or how detailed they might be, can ever by itself amount to *science* in the contemporary sense of that word. Having a large grab-bag of tricks at your disposal that can solve a certain narrow class of practical difficulties can certainly be useful, but in the absence of both (1) a unifying system of explanatory principles, however "thin" these might be in practice, (2) and a systematic (however weakly systematic circumstances might leave it) program of inquiry that enables you to test and enrich #1, then you do not have science.

Science is the art of inquiry raised to a refined status beyond just and only such inquiries as we find in common sense activities, which aims at discovering new facts. A grab-bag of useful tricks does not even rise to the level of inquiry, beyond the question of which previously established trick is the most useful one to apply here and now. But such tricks (by themselves) have nothing to do with the discovery of new facts. Perhaps they can lead to such discovery, when inquiry is turned in that direction. But none of Conner's examples offer any reason to believe that such interests played any role in the actions of the persons who employed those tricks.

But worse still is Conner's gross misrepresentation of the pre-socratic Greek philosophers as nascent scientists whose efforts were completely unmade by the "Platonic idealism" (my phrase) that came to dominate Greek culture. This picture is one of the silliest, most singularly indefensible caricatures of Greek speculative thought that I have encountered in some time. Aristotle has a better right to be called a "scientist" than, say, Anaximander -- and more than a few people have done so despite the fact that Aristotle was no manner of scientist whatsoever.

Perhaps someone with greater patience, or less background in philosophy, than myself will find these flaws less insufferable than I do. But I do find them insufferable, and barring some genuinely significant compulsion, this is not a book I will ever return to.

[A. Hominid · Rating 2 out of 5]

I was supremely interested at the outset, but then I was let down so suddenly my head hit the ground before my feet.

The thesis of this book is very interesting and important: that the body of knowledge of Nature, what we term science, is the product of hundreds of years of human hands-on experimentation and interaction with Nature. Scientific knowledge is not, contrary to élitist histories, the work of several great men, but the work of numberless unnamed manual laborers, craftsmen, and artisans. The early human colonization and navigation of the Pacific islands attests to that.

Unfortunately, the author’s anti-elitist and modern liberal prejudices totally ruined this. He implies past European historians believed science began with the ancient Greeks because of racism and Eurocentrism - completely overlooking the simple explanation that the scientific achievements, let alone existence, of ancient Mesopotamia and Egypt were totally unknown to the Europeans until the middle to late 19th century. He praises “Black Athena” because it received severe criticism from academic historians (not on account of any merit the book’s arguments have).

This bleeds into a dichotomous and sterile history of Ancient Greek thought: élitism vs. demotism. I’m all for highlighting socio-economic and intellectual prejudices, but not in a way that subtly encourages me to discredit a thinker just because he or she is an elitist. As much as Plato needs to be taken down a peg or two for his outlandish notions, he shouldn’t be disregarded outright because his (supposed) socio-political views are anathema to the author. Why are the people most obsessed with exposing biases/prejudices also the most blind to their own? Furthermore, for a chapter dedicated to disproving the myth of the “Greek Miracle,” (a title the author bandies about as if it’s commonly used), he spends most of it just recounting the principal ideas of celebrated Greek philosophers. So much for a “people’s” history of science.

At that point I realized “oh this is just a political book masquerading as a history of science.”

[Brian Bloom · Rating 1 out of 5]

The title of this book is slightly deceiving. While some of the information is great and informative with regard to what you would expect (how science has progressed through non scientific entities) as you progress through the book it slowly becomes dominated by the author's biased dribble on how science is destroying the world. He writes the entire book as a series of quotes of other peoples opinions and thoughts on historical events and so most of the time his biases are referenced by some schmuck who simply agrees with him. Clearly science is not some omnipotent entity and there are many examples of its shortcomings, but there is no place for that in a book that says it will focus on how miners, midwives, and low mechanicks have affected scientific history.

This was a struggle to simply finish and by no means would I recommend it for someone else to read

[Rebekah Kohlhepp · Rating 4 out of 5]

I love to seek out science history books that tell the stories of unsung heroes. Anything that doesn’t begin and end with Newton, that doesn’t praise Darwin’s work of genius, that doesn’t repeat the somber myth of Galileo’s persecution, is what I want. Clifford Conner’s 2005 book A People’s History of Science: Miners, Midwives, and “Low Mechanicks” exemplifies this worthy retelling of the story of science better than anything I’ve ever read.

While the 500-page tome was intimidating, Conner had my deepest appreciation from page 1. He had articulated truths of science that I had always suspected but had never before seen written in a book.

Conner’s goal in A People’s History of Science was simple, and he referred back to it throughout the book. Does this idea belong in a people’s history of science? Would that history be complete without this? The many people who were left out, Conner admits, were solely because there is no way to know of their unwritten accomplishments.

Read more: https://sheseeksnonfiction.blog/2023/...

[Serdar Tutal · Rating 5 out of 5]

Bilim birkaç dehanın düşünsel süreçlerinin sonucu değil, madencilerin, denizcilerin, tüccarların sorunlar karşısında ürettiği pratik çözümlerin bir sonucu. Bu gerçeği geçmişten günümüze örneklerle anlatan gerçek bir kitap. Her şeyden önce cesaret verici.

[Kadir Soygüder · Rating 4 out of 5]

Harika bir eser. Itiraf etmeliyim ki atladigim yerler oldu. Ama hayrete düşüren bilgiler iceriyor. Benden okuyacak olanlara tavsiyem; dipnotlari da beraber okumalaridir. Tabikide dipnot düşülen yeri okudugunuzda...

[Amber · Rating 5 out of 5]

As a leftist scientist, I adore this book. Science is and always has been a collective effort. The book is very ambitious in its scope, but it does an excellent job. I want to read more about the history of STEM from this respective.

[Jon Wlasiuk · Rating 3 out of 5]

A subversive attack on the “great men” school of history but is not served by 100-page chapters.

[Mohammad Khakpaki · Rating 3 out of 5]

تاریخ پیدایش و گسترش علم رو از زمان انسان اولیه تا عصر کامپیوتر توضیح میده، ولی یه مقدار خسته کننده است متاسفانه

[Alexis · Rating 1 out of 5]

I love history and I love science which means I should have loved this. It was so badly written and boring that I just could not force myself to finish it.

[Bin · Rating 4 out of 5]

Incredibly fascinating, up until the last chapter, which has a lot of problems in my opinion. But otherwise, great read.

[GezginHerodot · Rating 5 out of 5]

Yine bir Tübitak basımı bilgisi bol bir kitap.

[Egg]

I don’t want to be nitpicky but I do feel like the failure to mention the Tuskegee experiments was a big mistake??

[JacesLaces · Rating 3 out of 5]

An ungodly amount of yapping but I gained a newfound appreciation for the countless, unnamed, and forgotten people whose shoulders we all stand on. On a personal level, this has completely dispelled my fetishization of institutional science and made me realize that my dream as a kid of being a scientist can still be made manifest but in a different way that I had never anticipated.

[Hilmi Uysal · Rating 4 out of 5]

Marksist ve dışsalcı bilim tarihçiliği geleneğinin geçmişi 1930’lara uzanır. Günümüze gelen ciddi bir akademik gelenek bu. Bu geleneğin geçmişinde, 1931’de Londra’da düzenlenen ikinci Uluslararası Bilim ve Teknoloji Tarihi kongresi önemli yer işgal ediyor. Çok kalabalık bir heyetin Sovyetler’den bu kongreye katılımı, Bukharin gibi Sovyet devriminin çok önemli bir figürünün bu heyete liderlik etmesi, Boris Hessen’in meşhur Newton tezini bu kongrede sunması….Bunlar Marksist ve dışsalcı bilim tarihçiliğinin önemli anları.
2005 tarihli Conner’ın bu kitabı, Marksist-dışsalcı geleneğe dahil edilebilecek çok iyi bir kitap. Kitabın ana tezi 17. yy. Bilim Devriminin asıl aktörlerinin Galileo, Newton ve diğer bilindik entelektüeller olmadığı, devrimin başat aktörlerinin bu entelektüellere nazaran daha düşük sosyal statüdeki elle iş yapan ustalar, zanaatkarlar, denizciler, şifacılar gibi tarihe ve kitaplara adları geçmemiş kişiler olduğudur. Elbette kitabın bu tezinin arkasındaki fikir, teoriden ziyade pratiğin ve doğayı değiştirmenin "bilim" denen insan uğraşını oluşturduğu düşüncesi.
Kitapta dışsalcı ve Marksist bilim tarihçiliğinin ana referansları ve önemli tarihçileri (örneğin, baba oğul Bernaller, Zilsel, Needham) hakkında çok faydalı bilgiler ve yorumlar mevcut. Bilim tarihçiliğinin kendi tarihi ve bilim tarihçiliği disiplininin içindeki tarihyazımı tartışmaları hakkında çok değerli açılımlar sunuyor kitap. Konunun meraklılarının mutlaka okumasını öneririm, imkanınız varsa İngilizce orijinalinden okuyunuz.

[Joan · Rating 2 out of 5]

This book was saved by chapter 2 and the last chapter. The rest was driving me insane. These two chapters covered the chronological ends of science, the very beginning, which makes a fascinating argument for the sheer brilliance of the hunters-gatherers and an examination in the last chapter of the current state of science and where it might be heading. The author's thesis, which he throws up in the air over and over again, is that really scientific progress is based on the work of billions of unknown people at the bottom of society and that the Big Names of science, Gallileo, Newton, etc. just adapted or downright stole the achievements of all these unknown people. He way overstates his claim, to where it got really annoying. While I don't dispute his claim that a lot of science was built on the technologies artisans were using at the time, I don't think it was all that way. I don't think the rich classes went out of their way to steal knowledge and then claim credit for the discovery. Rather than the two sides being foes, it would be more appropriate to consider them as different partners to scientific discoveries, rather than try to claim one side did all the actual work and the other side was simply swooping down and grabbing the discoveries and becoming unduly famous. Yes, a lot of technicians and artisans were never named. So have a lot of scientists never been named over time. I think it is human nature to look for heroes in a field and admire them. This is scarcely just a fact in only science. A lot of the artists he spoke about such as Da Vinci, would direct work of many people, do the formulating and design and some of the work, then claim sole credit for the now classic work of art.

So to sum up a book that badly needed more editing and better writing, the author does make a decent point that behind every discovery is a lot of people's hard work who tend to be unnamed. This book read like a college thesis. While I'm not interested enough to go back to the acknowledgements and check, I'll bet it did get its birth in a college class. If the book had been half the size and not nearly so ernest and ideological, it would have been a much better book. I'm glad I read it, if only to get a sense of what a very different look at science can produce.