What do you think?
Rate this book
Science & Discovery
Dimensions of Scientific Thought
We think of science as a way of discovering certainty in an unpredictable world; experiments are designed to objectivity measure cause and effect. Yet science often produces more new questions than answers, and all scientific theories can change with new and better observations. Scientific philosophers say that objective observations actually depend heavily on the observer's intuition and point of view. This audio presentation explores the power and limitations of this special type of knowledge called science.
The Science and Discovery Series recreates one of history's most successful journeys: four thousand years of scientific efforts to better understand and control the physical world. Science has often challenged and upset conventional wisdom or accepted practices; this is a story of vested interests and independent thinkers, experiments and theories, change and progress. Aristotle, Copernicus, Kepler, Galileo, Newton, Darwin, Einstein, and many others are featured.
The Science and Discovery Series recreates one of history's most successful journeys: four thousand years of scientific efforts to better understand and control the physical world. Science has often challenged and upset conventional wisdom or accepted practices; this is a story of vested interests and independent thinkers, experiments and theories, change and progress. Aristotle, Copernicus, Kepler, Galileo, Newton, Darwin, Einstein, and many others are featured.
- GenresScienceHistoryPhilosophy
Audio CD
First published January 9, 2006
3 people are currently reading
11 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 2 of 2 reviews
February 20, 2017
All the books in this series generally get rated lower than I would have imagined. I love this entire series! If you are looking for an Audible book, a book that is well written and is read by a well rehearsed, finessed reader, you might not enjoy this series. However, if you are looking for the shortest possible summary on a subject, which contains a no nonsense account of the most interesting and pertinent information associate with that subject (sort of like an expanded wiki page), this series is for you!
In almost no time at all, the reader gains a pretty damn good understanding of the main points of the subject. If it's a subject the reader has already learned, these are excellent refreshers. They help bring the main points of a subject to mind so the reader can think about it some more or move on to a book that goes more in depth.
In this book, the author provides a very short summary of how we know what we know. It starts out with Parmenides who tried to understand how we know the way of truth and the way of belief. Secrets of truth can only be understood by pure reason. This thought process was in opposition to Protagoras (5th century BCE), who asserted that man was the measure of all things, for man used his senses to understand the world. Thus, there is no absolute truth because truth is in the eye of the beholder. However, Parmenides and other reason minded individuals suggested that there were absolute truths to be discovered, such as mathematical proofs. From this line of thinking, Euclid's book Elements was born (3rd century BCE). It suggested there were self evident axioms upon which we could build our knowledge. This set the stage for understanding that there were things that could be proven.
Plato became a huge proponent of this thinking, stating that the only things we can know are those which we can demonstrate. It was clear to followers of this line of thinking that theorems were true before humans discovered them, e.g. 2 +2 equaled 4 even if no mind were there to conceptualize it. In search of truths, via the use of pure reasoning skills, Plato opened the first university in Europe, called The Academy. To Plato, the hope of the world depended on science. Aristotle studied under Plato and was the first to embark upon mainly empirical inquiries. (I have always had such disdain for Aristotelian philosophy, but I do like that Aristotle at least attempted to understand the world through what he believed to be an empirical approach. In truth, what he learned and taught was knowledge largely gained through his own errors in heuristic thinking. But that could hardly be helped since most reason was born out of observation.).
From there the authors demonstrated how the stage was further set for sophisticated research into heuristics as humans continued to question the scientific method being built. What biases drove "pure reason, "pure observation," or "empirical findings"? How did each researcher come along and change our system of scientific inquiry to constantly address the concerns being raised? Sir Francis Bacon receives quite a bit of focus, considering how short the book is, and rightfully so since his contribution to our understanding of empiricism. The author also pays homage to Hume, Popper, Bohr, Einstein, and the other usual suspects who brought us into the current day.
These series always provide snippets of each scientists original writings. They are often read in the audioversion in fun accents. My favorite in this book was the scathing indictment of astrology. I can imagine what it was like to read that back when it was written. I wish they had included the hate mail that surely must have followed.
The book ended with scientists ushering in chaos theory. I highly recommend their book on Complexity and Chaos by Roger WhiteComplexity and Chaos. Instead of focusing on Mandelbrot, that book has a deliciously satisfying focus on Prigogine (who I immediately fell in love with).
In almost no time at all, the reader gains a pretty damn good understanding of the main points of the subject. If it's a subject the reader has already learned, these are excellent refreshers. They help bring the main points of a subject to mind so the reader can think about it some more or move on to a book that goes more in depth.
In this book, the author provides a very short summary of how we know what we know. It starts out with Parmenides who tried to understand how we know the way of truth and the way of belief. Secrets of truth can only be understood by pure reason. This thought process was in opposition to Protagoras (5th century BCE), who asserted that man was the measure of all things, for man used his senses to understand the world. Thus, there is no absolute truth because truth is in the eye of the beholder. However, Parmenides and other reason minded individuals suggested that there were absolute truths to be discovered, such as mathematical proofs. From this line of thinking, Euclid's book Elements was born (3rd century BCE). It suggested there were self evident axioms upon which we could build our knowledge. This set the stage for understanding that there were things that could be proven.
Plato became a huge proponent of this thinking, stating that the only things we can know are those which we can demonstrate. It was clear to followers of this line of thinking that theorems were true before humans discovered them, e.g. 2 +2 equaled 4 even if no mind were there to conceptualize it. In search of truths, via the use of pure reasoning skills, Plato opened the first university in Europe, called The Academy. To Plato, the hope of the world depended on science. Aristotle studied under Plato and was the first to embark upon mainly empirical inquiries. (I have always had such disdain for Aristotelian philosophy, but I do like that Aristotle at least attempted to understand the world through what he believed to be an empirical approach. In truth, what he learned and taught was knowledge largely gained through his own errors in heuristic thinking. But that could hardly be helped since most reason was born out of observation.).
From there the authors demonstrated how the stage was further set for sophisticated research into heuristics as humans continued to question the scientific method being built. What biases drove "pure reason, "pure observation," or "empirical findings"? How did each researcher come along and change our system of scientific inquiry to constantly address the concerns being raised? Sir Francis Bacon receives quite a bit of focus, considering how short the book is, and rightfully so since his contribution to our understanding of empiricism. The author also pays homage to Hume, Popper, Bohr, Einstein, and the other usual suspects who brought us into the current day.
These series always provide snippets of each scientists original writings. They are often read in the audioversion in fun accents. My favorite in this book was the scathing indictment of astrology. I can imagine what it was like to read that back when it was written. I wish they had included the hate mail that surely must have followed.
The book ended with scientists ushering in chaos theory. I highly recommend their book on Complexity and Chaos by Roger WhiteComplexity and Chaos. Instead of focusing on Mandelbrot, that book has a deliciously satisfying focus on Prigogine (who I immediately fell in love with).
August 25, 2019
This was a decent, very short, introduction to some of the philosophy and history of science. I do not think it gives you a great deal of nuance on the questions it covers, but if you are looking to start diving into the philosophy of science it's probably not a bad way to orient yourself about the questions that need to be addressed.
If you are looking for a high-quality audio product along these lines that goes into more depth, I really liked the History of Science: Antiquity to 1700 course from The Great Courses. It covers some similar ground - though I think some of the philosophy of science is still left unaddressed there (and certainly it leaves out some of the more advanced techniques and processes).
Overall, this is worth listening to if you have a bit of time to kill.
3 of 5 stars
If you are looking for a high-quality audio product along these lines that goes into more depth, I really liked the History of Science: Antiquity to 1700 course from The Great Courses. It covers some similar ground - though I think some of the philosophy of science is still left unaddressed there (and certainly it leaves out some of the more advanced techniques and processes).
Overall, this is worth listening to if you have a bit of time to kill.
3 of 5 stars
Displaying 1 - 2 of 2 reviews