The Scientists: A History of Science Told Through the Lives of Its Greatest Inventors in Science and Inquiry

Oct 16, 2010 Steve Van Slyke rated it liked it

Shelves: history, science, dan-s

This book is similar in some respects to Bertrand Russell’s A History of Western Philosophy which takes the reader on a tour of the great philosophers from Aristotle to Kant, Locke and Voltaire. In this case the journey is from Ptolemy, Copernicus and Gallileo to Einstein and Feynman with a lot of stops in between.

At times the author delves a little deeper into the personal history of some of the scientists than was necessary for this reader. And being British and understandably writing primaril This book is similar in some respects to Bertrand Russell’s A History of Western Philosophy which takes the reader on a tour of the great philosophers from Aristotle to Kant, Locke and Voltaire. In this case the journey is from Ptolemy, Copernicus and Gallileo to Einstein and Feynman with a lot of stops in between.

At times the author delves a little deeper into the personal history of some of the scientists than was necessary for this reader. And being British and understandably writing primarily for his home audience, he at times assumes a greater knowledge of, and interest in, British history than perhaps the typical American or non-Anglo reader might possess. But these are only very minor criticisms.

Overall I found it an enjoyable read, and in some instances quite surprising. For one example, in the late 1500’s Giordano Bruno not only stated his full support of the Copernican model of the solar system, he went on to state that because the stars were apparently infinite in number that “there must be life elsewhere in the universe.” Bruno was obviously way ahead of his time and rather than being burned at the stake as a heretic he would probably be working for NASA if he were alive today.

Another example of this sort was in when in 1783 John Michell predicted the existence of black holes based on his knowledge of the speed of light and the density and gravity of stars. I had no idea the concept of black holes went back that far.

At least up to the time of Darwin it seems as if most of the scientists were born wealthy and often originally destined to become priests, ministers or monks. Many studied medicine or law, which aside from theology were the two other main professions of the time. It was the rare individual who managed to distinguish himself in science but also came from humble means.

In this book and in others I am glad to see Alfred Russell Wallace often being mentioned in the same breath as Charles Darwin, and Robert Hooke with Isaac Newton. And in the same vein it was in this book that I learned that a woman, Rosalind Franklin, had most likely discovered the structure of DNA prior to Crick and Watson, and that they had even relied on her data and X-ray photography (without her knowledge) in order to construct their model of the DNA double Helix. After reading more about Franklin in Wikipedia I learned there is biography of her by Brenda Maddox Rosalind Franklin: The Dark Lady of DNA. I’ve added it to my To Read list. Perhaps some day, Franklin’s name and accomplishments will be at least as familiar as Wallace’s.

I would have loved to have given this book four stars instead of three were it not for another minor criticism: the overuse of long parenthetical phrases.. For example, on page 433: “If energy is put in by jiggling the stretched rope (equivalent to putting energy into an electromagnetic field by making a current flow first in one direction and then in the other in a long wire or an antenna system), you can send ripples down the rope.” The phrase in parentheses is longer than the sentence it modifies! Wouldn’t it have been simpler and clearer to say, “If energy is put in by jiggling the stretched rope you can send ripples down it, which is equivalent to putting energy into an electromagnetic field…..etc.” No parentheses, no confusion. I frequently found myself having to read such sentences twice to be sure I understood the meaning. The editor is as much or more to blame as the author. ...more

Like · see review