The Invention of Science: A New History of the Scientific Revolution
- Downloads：1667
- Type：Epub+TxT+PDF+Mobi
- Create Date：2021-07-05 09:55:15
- Update Date：2025-09-06
- Status：finish
- Author：David Wootton
- ISBN：0141040831
- Environment：PC/Android/iPhone/iPad/Kindle
- Download
Summary
We live in a world made by science。 How and when did this happen？ This book tells the story of the extraordinary intellectual and cultural revolution that gave birth to modern science， and mounts a major challenge to the prevailing orthodoxy of its history。
Before 1492 it was assumed that all significant knowledge was already available; there was no concept of progress; people looked for understanding to the past not the future。 This book argues that the discovery of America demonstrated that new knowledge was possible: indeed it introduced the very concept of 'discovery'， and opened the way to the invention of science。
The first crucial discovery was Tycho Brahe's nova of 1572: proof that there could be change in the heavens。 The telescope （1610） rendered the old astronomy obsolete。 Torricelli's experiment with the vacuum （1643） led directly to the triumph of the experimental method in the Royal Society of Boyle and Newton。 By 1750 Newtonianism was being celebrated throughout Europe。
The new science did not consist simply of new discoveries， or new methods。 It relied on a new understanding of what knowledge might be， and with this came a new language: discovery， progress， facts， experiments， hypotheses， theories， laws of nature - almost all these terms existed before 1492， but their meanings were radically transformed so they became tools with which to think scientifically。 We all now speak this language of science， which was invented during the Scientific Revolution。
The new culture had its martyrs （Bruno， Galileo）， its heroes （Kepler， Boyle）， its propagandists （Voltaire， Diderot）， and its patient labourers （Gilbert， Hooke）。 It led to a new rationalism， killing off alchemy， astrology， and belief in witchcraft。 It led to the invention of the steam engine and to the first Industrial Revolution。 David Wootton's landmark book changes our understanding of how this great transformation came about， and of what science is。
Before 1492 it was assumed that all significant knowledge was already available; there was no concept of progress; people looked for understanding to the past not the future。 This book argues that the discovery of America demonstrated that new knowledge was possible: indeed it introduced the very concept of 'discovery'， and opened the way to the invention of science。
The first crucial discovery was Tycho Brahe's nova of 1572: proof that there could be change in the heavens。 The telescope （1610） rendered the old astronomy obsolete。 Torricelli's experiment with the vacuum （1643） led directly to the triumph of the experimental method in the Royal Society of Boyle and Newton。 By 1750 Newtonianism was being celebrated throughout Europe。
The new science did not consist simply of new discoveries， or new methods。 It relied on a new understanding of what knowledge might be， and with this came a new language: discovery， progress， facts， experiments， hypotheses， theories， laws of nature - almost all these terms existed before 1492， but their meanings were radically transformed so they became tools with which to think scientifically。 We all now speak this language of science， which was invented during the Scientific Revolution。
The new culture had its martyrs （Bruno， Galileo）， its heroes （Kepler， Boyle）， its propagandists （Voltaire， Diderot）， and its patient labourers （Gilbert， Hooke）。 It led to a new rationalism， killing off alchemy， astrology， and belief in witchcraft。 It led to the invention of the steam engine and to the first Industrial Revolution。 David Wootton's landmark book changes our understanding of how this great transformation came about， and of what science is。
Reviews
Raymundo
，
Es un libro de texto sobre filosofía de la ciencia enfocada en el perido medieval a 1900， aunque principalmente hasta 1750。 Hay nada de los descubrimientos epidemiológicos de siglos XIX o XX， o bien del rol de la ciencia en la industria armamentística， o el rol de la ciencia actualmente， y el libro aborda la física casi únicamente。 El lenguaje es árido y repetitivo， no es para el público en general definitivamente， pero si se iba a enfocar en algo tan detallado el libro no debería de ser 600 pág Es un libro de texto sobre filosofía de la ciencia enfocada en el perido medieval a 1900， aunque principalmente hasta 1750。 Hay nada de los descubrimientos epidemiológicos de siglos XIX o XX， o bien del rol de la ciencia en la industria armamentística， o el rol de la ciencia actualmente， y el libro aborda la física casi únicamente。 El lenguaje es árido y repetitivo， no es para el público en general definitivamente， pero si se iba a enfocar en algo tan detallado el libro no debería de ser 600 páginas， sino 200。 La anécdota que más vale la pena en el libro es Galileo y sus telescopios descubriendo el movimiento de Venus， y cómo eso acabó con la "filosofía aristoteliana" y su concepción del mundo y abrió nuevas avenidas para su entendimiento。 。。。more
Gregory Cornelius
，
This is an incredibly well researched history of the Scientific Revolution with a mountain of factual information contained within the ~700 pages。 Beyond the chronological events of science history Wooton references Khun， Popper， and thinkers like from Lucretius to Montaigne to Wittgenstein and Bourdieu to build an argument that scientific knowledge is distinct from other forms of knowledge。 He argues convincingly against the Relativist and postmodernist characterisation of science as nothing mo This is an incredibly well researched history of the Scientific Revolution with a mountain of factual information contained within the ~700 pages。 Beyond the chronological events of science history Wooton references Khun， Popper， and thinkers like from Lucretius to Montaigne to Wittgenstein and Bourdieu to build an argument that scientific knowledge is distinct from other forms of knowledge。 He argues convincingly against the Relativist and postmodernist characterisation of science as nothing more than a social construct。 For those who are interested in the history or philosophy of science this is an important addition to the field。 。。。more
Stephanie Moore
，
DNF@19%
Justin Rutledge
，
Wootton strays a bit from the popular notions of scientific revolutions and offers a compelling argument for how we've come to view the physical world - the objective reality about which science is concerned。 He is careful to point out changes in language across various cultures between approximately1500 and 1750， resulting from exploration， technology， and in particular the fields of astronomy and law。 Fact， evidence， experience （later experiments）: these were legal terms before they became ado Wootton strays a bit from the popular notions of scientific revolutions and offers a compelling argument for how we've come to view the physical world - the objective reality about which science is concerned。 He is careful to point out changes in language across various cultures between approximately1500 and 1750， resulting from exploration， technology， and in particular the fields of astronomy and law。 Fact， evidence， experience （later experiments）: these were legal terms before they became adopted by the scientific community。 Hypothesis and theory came from the field of astronomy， and took on new meanings when generalized。 These words （among others） and their meanings， written here in English， developed internationally in the West across language and nationality - the concept of 'fact'， for example， as we use it today， was in part molded by Montaigne， Galileo， Bacon， and van Helmont， despite their works being written in French， Italian， English， and Latin respectively。 Another interesting argument from this book is that modern science is the result of "Sailors & Jewellers，" not "Philosophers & Kings。" By this he means that those who explore， experience， craft， build， work， see the world as it really is - these are the ones who discover knowledge。 The compass was of no use to a king， but a sailor's life depends on it。 A microscope may fascinate an aristocrat， but it's the jeweller that takes the steps to create the technology for his work。 It's the actions of those who interact with the world and not simply think about it that contribute the most to a deeper understanding of our objective reality。I recommend The Invention of Science to anyone that has an interest in the history of science， the history of language， or western philosophy in general。 。。。more
Praveen Kishore
，
A landmark book in the history of science， utterly refreshing， insightful， gripping and grand in its scope and intellectual insight。 Simply magnificent！！
Liam Kilroy
，
Even though I don’t agree with all of Woottons arguments （and I feel he’s a bit harsh towards philosophers at times）， this book is well researched and well written。 The last 100 pages are the best， in my opinion， where he offers a high-level view of not only his own arguments but those which he is responding to。 I respect that he is able to find value in the positions of the epistemic relativists and （naive） scientific realists while pointing out that neither works well on their own。
M。
，
I come to this book from an unusual perspective， as someone who spent a chunk of my undergraduate time reading the source texts of early natural philosophers and their philosopher predecessors chronologically from Aristotle to Lucretius to Tycho Brahe to Newton and beyond， and replicating （or trying to replicate） the experiments of the experimenters， particularly from Galileo onward。So I've studied the history of science as philosophy， then natural philosophy， then science， but not as history。 T I come to this book from an unusual perspective， as someone who spent a chunk of my undergraduate time reading the source texts of early natural philosophers and their philosopher predecessors chronologically from Aristotle to Lucretius to Tycho Brahe to Newton and beyond， and replicating （or trying to replicate） the experiments of the experimenters， particularly from Galileo onward。So I've studied the history of science as philosophy， then natural philosophy， then science， but not as history。 This book provided history， helped fill in context and culture， and illuminated background detail well beyond my prior understanding。There are several arguments about various academic approaches to the history of science that I am not equipped to evaluate， even with the book in hand。 But I am glad to be a beneficiary of the research the author undertook in order to make the arguments。If you're on the fence about reading this， I recommend listening to one or more episodes of the BBC radio program/podcast "In Our Time" in which Dr。 Wootton appears。 For instance， the February 18， 2016 episode on Robert Hooke is a fine example of Dr。 Wootton's style of discussion of a figure of the period。 。。。more
Miguel
，
No consigue interesarme y termino por perderme en la trama de los personajes que discutieron sobre la ciencia en los albores de ésta。
Ian Tymms
，
This book matters。 It matters generally because of its meticulous scholarship and its well-reasoned articulation of the processes that underpin scientific knowledge。 It matters specifically now as an antidote to the forces of counter-scientific thinking that， through ignorance or self-serving lies， are picking away at the fabric of society and academia。 In the context of COVID， a robust and reliable scientific process is life-saving。 What I came to better appreciate through reading Wootton is bo This book matters。 It matters generally because of its meticulous scholarship and its well-reasoned articulation of the processes that underpin scientific knowledge。 It matters specifically now as an antidote to the forces of counter-scientific thinking that， through ignorance or self-serving lies， are picking away at the fabric of society and academia。 In the context of COVID， a robust and reliable scientific process is life-saving。 What I came to better appreciate through reading Wootton is both how recent and also how fragile the processes we call "science" really are。 My crude understanding prior to reading the book was that the key transition into modern thought occured with Aristotle。 Plato represented antiquity with the proper locus of inquiry being the mind; the objects of the world are no more than interesting approximations of intellectual "forms" and of limited use to the thinking philosopher。 However misguided much of Aristotle's thinking may have been， I understood science to have begun with Aristotle's determination to investigate the details of the world through observation and classification。 Wootton argues convincingly that just observing the world and documenting what is seen is not enough to form the foundations of science。 What is missing until the 16th and 17th centuries is a true scientific process and a culture of inquiry。 And for such a process and culture to exist， Wooton demonstrates， a series of social and technological advances needed to be made。 The printing press is necessary because knowledge has to be widely available and documented clearly so that others can test and verify。 Advances in technology are important because they provide the precision instruments that allow for the careful and replicable measurement of the natural world。 A culture of inquiry built on the social investment in the 16th century voyages of discovery supports the elevation of individual thinkers who can explore the natural world in new ways。 Wootton's chapter on the historical evolution of the concept of a "fact" is both exhaustive in its scholarship and compelling in its argument that an enlightenment understanding of a "fact" is qualitatively different to any understanding that preceded it。 Before the enlightenment， "fact" had more of the quality of the modern concept of "gossip" relying on hearsay and authority; after the enlightenment， a "fact" requires validation in objective evidence。 This is the true origins of modern science。Most interesting for me is Wootton's explanation of the relativism of the mid 20th century。 When I was an undergraduate in the late 1980s， the post-structural thinking of Jacques Derrida was influential。 I found the arguments （to the extent that I understood them） compelling and persuasive but also deeply unsettling as they seemed to uncouple the mind from the world。 In the final chapters of his book， Wootton offers a rapprochement by reminding the reader of the "whiggish" history to which Derrida and others in the relativist tradition were reacting。 What stopped Aristotelian philosophy maturing to become modern science were the mechanisms of self-serving social power which permeate language and culture。 The post-modern philosophers provide a clear articulation of these processes。 What Wootton argues - very convincingly to my mind - is that it's possible to understand the thinking of Derrida and Wittgenstein and others as a useful addition to the history of science rather than as a refutation of scientific process。 Scientific thought needs to be understood as both a social and a "factual" process。 。。。more
Tim Finn
，
It took some effort at points， but the conclusion brings it all together。 A very interesting read overall - I learnt a great deal about how the language and thought processes made science science， and not so much a history of dates and inventions。 Reads like an academic book and it can be a little bit of a mission at points。
Roger Smitter
，
The first sentence of a 768 page is a surprise: “The world we live in is much younger than you might expect。” （p。 3）Soon we are reading stories about the work of the early （very early） scientists; Wootton does a powerful job of bringing the early “scientists” who changed the world。 He gives us a very different view of science that we may have heard in high school and college courses—especially for those of us who took the required number of courses and never read a book about science again。 At t The first sentence of a 768 page is a surprise: “The world we live in is much younger than you might expect。” （p。 3）Soon we are reading stories about the work of the early （very early） scientists; Wootton does a powerful job of bringing the early “scientists” who changed the world。 He gives us a very different view of science that we may have heard in high school and college courses—especially for those of us who took the required number of courses and never read a book about science again。 At the same time， this book shows that non-scientists can find interest and knowledge about the people （almost 100% males in this book） who made science emerge。 The author makes some difficult ideas about the growth of science a topic that most of us can understand。 For example， “The word “scientist” was very slow to become established for the straightforward that it was （like the word ‘television’） an illegitimate from Latin and Greek。” （28） Another “new idea” showed up in 155， 4 “Discovery is not in itself a scientific idea but rather an idea that is fundamental form science。” （101）He also tells us that math in any form of work built the ability to understand the world。 （203）。 There’s a great storey about Johannes Kepler in 1610 that launches chapter 6， There’s a reference to Christian thinking in the Middle Ages that God had created the world to be a place for humans （233）Chapter 7 tells us that “Facts alone are what are lived in life” according to what Dickens made a character in Hard Times in 1854。 Our author tells us on the same page that Thomas Kuhn said “。。。the so-called facts proved never to be mere facts， independence of existing belief and theory。” The big change in the history is the change from religious faith to science: “The new science was， compared to what had gone before， based on distrust， not trust。” 299 This is central of what he says in the book。 And then reminds us that the printing press made it possible to have information for all persons。 It raised the question about what it the use of the “fact” （309）In Chapter 8 “Experiments” we read about what was the first “proper” experiment？ （311） In that time of new knowledge for more people， there were two types of knowledge: Plato and Euclid （322）“the first major field for experiment enquiry in the early modern period was the magnet 327 “It would be difficult to overestimate the impact of Gilder’s On the Magnet…。because for the first time the experiment method had been presented 。。。” （331） and it was a series accident。 （336）“Experiments produce new knowledge， but if that knowledge does not circulate there is little opportunity for further progress。” （340） The author uses Newton’s famous statement: “If I have seen farther it is by standing of the shoulders of giants” to show the change in how people began to think。 （341）A big change began around 1660 when English words experimental philosophy in meaning （347） Also， science work and progress came about from the exchange of ideas among scientists using a sociological interaction。 （348） Previously there had been only 4 laws of science: the lever， the optical law of reflection， the law of buoyancy and the parallelogram law of velocities （368） Also， scientists began to work on the basis of hypotheses and theories （387） and how science began to define its own language， including the word theory （394）。 Part Four is for the Birth of the Modern， beginning with machines （Chapter 12）。 （However， the word modern goes back to the 6th century。 （451） We get a quick paragraph about what the Church did in this time and a very short reference to the way women could participate in science。 （470） Probably the most powerful chapter comes in Chapter 14， Knowledge is Power。 “The first great， practical achievement …was Newcomen’s steam engine in 1712。” （490） The book ends two ways of looking at the development of science: “…。。once you set out to answer a question that answer you will arrive at is entirely predetermined—just like Columbus’s discover of America。” （527） Of course there’s the question about the native people。 。。。more
Miguel
，
This is a book which I wanted to like and enjoy more， but proved to be such a tedious grind to get through that it took away from what could have been something much more enjoyable。 It’s not just that it has a ponderous approach to the topic， but the writing is somewhere between 19th century prose and high academic that deters from any actual pleasure that one might otherwise have had。 I kept thinking that if I had been assigned this in a college course setting and been asked to parse out the au This is a book which I wanted to like and enjoy more， but proved to be such a tedious grind to get through that it took away from what could have been something much more enjoyable。 It’s not just that it has a ponderous approach to the topic， but the writing is somewhere between 19th century prose and high academic that deters from any actual pleasure that one might otherwise have had。 I kept thinking that if I had been assigned this in a college course setting and been asked to parse out the author’s view of defining a “fact” that it would have been left me despairing。 Occasionally there are some very interesting aspects of the development of science and how human’s thought processes developed over time and in the hands of a more approachable author this would definitely make for a much more satisfying read。 。。。more
John
，
Wrong titleThe book should be called "The words used in Science， who used them first， how their meaning changed over time" Sub title "You Didn't Expect to Learn Science Did You" Boring Wrong titleThe book should be called "The words used in Science， who used them first， how their meaning changed over time" Sub title "You Didn't Expect to Learn Science Did You" Boring 。。。more
Justin Evans
，
This is probably a very important book to read if you're a philosopher of science who thinks that the theories of phlogiston and evolution are of equal validity。 Of course， those people do not exist。 This is clearly a failure of editing， agenting， and a triumph of misleading marketing。 This book is not at all a general reader's book about the scientific revolution， and certainly not about the invention of science。 it is， instead， scholarly articles embedded in a polemic against postmodernists （t This is probably a very important book to read if you're a philosopher of science who thinks that the theories of phlogiston and evolution are of equal validity。 Of course， those people do not exist。 This is clearly a failure of editing， agenting， and a triumph of misleading marketing。 This book is not at all a general reader's book about the scientific revolution， and certainly not about the invention of science。 it is， instead， scholarly articles embedded in a polemic against postmodernists （the book was apparently conceived in 1982）。 Others have written about the book's many structural flaws; I will just note two intellectual flaws。 First， Wootton opposes the sociology of science， because they approach science sociologically， without any regard for the truth claims of scientific theories。 Does he feel the same way about the sociology of religion， I wonder？ To make my point clear: sociologists study human interactions。 They do not care what those interactions are *about*， and if they did， they would be betraying the point of sociology。 Second， Wootton's positive arguments are horrific。 To take the most obvious: he claims that Columbus' discovery* of the Americas made science possible， by introducing the very concept of discovery。 It was not possible to 'discover' gravity， in other words， without the concept of discovery; without that concept， one could just go on adjusting already existing theories， rather than taking account of new facts （he also covers the invention of the idea of the fact）。 Slight problem here: Columbus' 'discovery' of the Americas was also the Americans' 'discovery' of Europe。 And yet， science did not develop in the Americas until after the Europeans had really， really， really 'discovered' it。 Why not？ Because concepts are useless in the absence of economic development， political support， and so on。 Science may rely on the concept of discovery *grammatically* （Wootton loves him some Wittgenstein， and is at pains to show that Wittgenstein was not a relativist）， but not *historically*。 There is nothing here about the importance of economic development for the development of science， which is no failing in an academic article about the concept of 'discovery，' but a rather glaring one in a book about the scientific revolution。 A true disappointment。 *: Columbus did not， of course， 'discover' the Americas。 They'd been discovered for some time by， you know， the many civilizations spread out over the continent for a millenium or more。 Wootton does not care。 。。。more
Daniel1974nlgmail。com
，
Although very informative。 The book sometimes comes across as a bit all over the shop as the book treats with different subjects。 It is not as the cover of the book states A new History Of The Scientific Revolution， which what I was actually looking for。 It is obvious the author knows his stuff and is widely read， but I expected something different。
Karmen
，
N
Max
，
I wanted to punch the author several times while reading this book。 If you like reading 20 page essays on the history of the word "fact" followed by 3 sentences of history， followed by 20 more pages of the worlds most boring etymological bullshit this is for you。 Like thats not an exageration theres like no fucking narration in this at all its on giant historiography bore。 God if I have to hear the author talk about the word "discorvery" or "evidence" again I might stab my own eyes out。 I wanted to punch the author several times while reading this book。 If you like reading 20 page essays on the history of the word "fact" followed by 3 sentences of history， followed by 20 more pages of the worlds most boring etymological bullshit this is for you。 Like thats not an exageration theres like no fucking narration in this at all its on giant historiography bore。 God if I have to hear the author talk about the word "discorvery" or "evidence" again I might stab my own eyes out。 。。。more
Jack Getz
，
Three stars for some interesting ideas and facts， and granular scholarships， regarding a very important time in Western Civilization。 But pretending that I love fighting through the mosquito infested jungle he presents is dishonest。 I endured it as long as I could then decided to read a dozen or so reviews instead。 Thanks to all who overcame this book and wrote understandable summaries。 I enjoy taking long showers in good information but this is more like what I think water boarding would feel l Three stars for some interesting ideas and facts， and granular scholarships， regarding a very important time in Western Civilization。 But pretending that I love fighting through the mosquito infested jungle he presents is dishonest。 I endured it as long as I could then decided to read a dozen or so reviews instead。 Thanks to all who overcame this book and wrote understandable summaries。 I enjoy taking long showers in good information but this is more like what I think water boarding would feel like。 I thought the progress percentage at the bottom of the pages was malfunctioning！ I love the subject but I don’t have the attention span to endure this tome。 I am a historian and a philosopher at heart， and to my credit， I completed Tom Jones， for those who question my intelligence or endurance capacities。 （You smile knowingly here。）Honesty matters when writing reviews。 。。。more
Tabitha
，
I did not enjoy the book。Before reading the book， I thought it was going to be about the inventions and discoveries made， about the changes in how 'science' was conducted， all in a particular time frame。 The expectation was that Wootton would present this as a story， as a historical account of science was revolutionised in a given time frame。 There are details about inventions， discoveries， and changes in 'science'。 Yet the attention is primarily on the introduction of new words into the languag I did not enjoy the book。Before reading the book， I thought it was going to be about the inventions and discoveries made， about the changes in how 'science' was conducted， all in a particular time frame。 The expectation was that Wootton would present this as a story， as a historical account of science was revolutionised in a given time frame。 There are details about inventions， discoveries， and changes in 'science'。 Yet the attention is primarily on the introduction of new words into the language used to describe phenomena。 Wootton elaborates on the etymology of these new words， the semantics behind the words （the meaning of these words as contemporaries would have understood them）， the change in the semantics of the new words， and who can the change in meaning， or the introduction of the word， be attributed to。 If I remember correctly， sometimes what was discovered or invented contributed to the introduction of these new words。 These words include: discovery， fact， invention， evidence， hypotheses/theories etc。 The aforementioned focus on language does not mean that it made the book， or the arguments bad。 It just was not what was expected or what I am necessarily interested in。 Wootton's account of the Scientific Revolution is rich in detail not only in the body of the text， but also is rich in detail because of the inclusion of footnotes。 The thesis is that between 1572 to 1704 the Scientific Revolution began。 He evidences this by the words （as aforementioned） introduced during this time frame。 。。。more
Bryan Alkire
，
Good book on the science revolution of the 17 and 18 centuries…the ground is pretty well covered on that topic， but this book does bring some fresh perspective。 The writing is good for the most part， though it sometimes goes into a mass od detail when it could have been more concise。 The arguments about what the revolution was are clearly laid out by topic and section and are free from repetition。 In short， this book exceeded my expectations quite a bit。So， I give this one a 5。 The book makes a Good book on the science revolution of the 17 and 18 centuries…the ground is pretty well covered on that topic， but this book does bring some fresh perspective。 The writing is good for the most part， though it sometimes goes into a mass od detail when it could have been more concise。 The arguments about what the revolution was are clearly laid out by topic and section and are free from repetition。 In short， this book exceeded my expectations quite a bit。So， I give this one a 5。 The book makes an interesting argument and is well written for the most part。 The argument is easy to follow and the material streamlined。 Well worth the read if you’re interested in the history of science。 。。。more
Ronald
，
Despite some of the valid negative comments from other reviewers （overly academic， jumps around in time， lots of repetition， heavy going）， this book provides significant insights on the scientific revolution that I have not seen elsewhere， and I suspect much of the author's insights are new。 For this reason I would highly recommend it to anyone with a serious interest in this subject。 Here is a summary of what I took away from the book， which provides much more detail。The scientific revolution t Despite some of the valid negative comments from other reviewers （overly academic， jumps around in time， lots of repetition， heavy going）， this book provides significant insights on the scientific revolution that I have not seen elsewhere， and I suspect much of the author's insights are new。 For this reason I would highly recommend it to anyone with a serious interest in this subject。 Here is a summary of what I took away from the book， which provides much more detail。The scientific revolution took place from 1572 （Tycho Brahe’s observation of a supernova） to 1704 based on some of Newton’s findings。 Prior to the revolution， the universe was seen as static and unchanging， and explained by authoritative opinions from ancient sources such as Aristotle that were based on logic and philosophy， not on evidence。 The scientific revolution changed this view of the universe among educated people。 Most importantly， the revolution placed the importance of experience （through evidence and experimentation） over the traditionally predominant logic-based authoritative opinion。This transformation in thinking came about at this particular time because of （1） new information that contradicted the previously dominant authoritative opinions about the nature of the universe， from voyages of exploration， the introduction of experimental methodology， and new scientific instruments， and （2） rapid sharing of the new information and new methods of investigation through the new technology of printing。 Key new information that upset existing beliefs included the discovery of America by Columbus and findings from other voyages of discovery; astronomical observations by Tycho Brahe and Galileo that contradicted the supposed fixity of the heavens; and establishment of experimentally based laws of nature by Galileo （law of fall）， Newton （light， motion） and others。 Important for producing the new contradictory evidence were newly invented instruments and devices， including the telescope， microscope， barometer， thermometer and prism。 Also important was the introduction of systematic experimentation and replication of experimental results， first applied to magnetism。 There was no ancient/classical commentary on magnetism to oppose these experimental results， so the technical findings were quickly accepted， as well as the novel methods of investigation。 About the same time， the new technology of printing brought about widespread sharing of all past knowledge， as well as of the new findings and methods of investigation， creating sizable communities of experts in communication with each other， and stimulating further discoveries。Finally， the scientific revolution started in Europe， where fragmented societies provided space for intellectual competition and diversity of thought， in contrast to other more centralized cultures （Ottoman， China）。 。。。more
Michael Burnam-Fink
，
The workings of science are almost entirely naturalized。 For us， it seems natural that scientists discover facts about the natural universe， and that they do so by formulating hypotheses and designing experiments to test those hypotheses。 But to someone in the in the 15th century， this process was entirely alien。 Wootton aims to discuss the scientific revolution， the period between Tycho's Nova of 1572 and the publication of Newton's Principia in 1687， where science became an accepted mode of kn The workings of science are almost entirely naturalized。 For us， it seems natural that scientists discover facts about the natural universe， and that they do so by formulating hypotheses and designing experiments to test those hypotheses。 But to someone in the in the 15th century， this process was entirely alien。 Wootton aims to discuss the scientific revolution， the period between Tycho's Nova of 1572 and the publication of Newton's Principia in 1687， where science became an accepted mode of knowledge。 But the real objective is a broadside against a school of scholarship which has wrecked proper history of science， namely David Bloor's Strong Programme， and an undue relativism in history of science， with it's origins in Thomas Kuhn's paradigm shift theory of scientific revolutions。 This book is at its best in discussing the world of knowledge prior to the scientific revolution。 I was entirely unaware of the controversy about the location of the sphere of land and the sphere of water in Aristotelian physics， or the belief that the oceans were literally above dry land， as preserved in the phrase 'high seas'。 There's a lot of good linguistic explanation of the origins and usages of words like experiment， fact， and discovery。 Wootton's argument is that the discovery and exploitation of the New World provided the initial crack in the armor of scholastic Aristotelian knowledge， since the Americas were so obviously there and the ancients had said nothing about them。 An interesting graph of sales of a popular Ptolemaic astronomy textbook shows a dip in sales in the 1570s， since a nova cannot be explained in a universe of divine spheres， and then a collapse with Galileo's discover of the moons of Jupiter and phases of Venus around 1608。 The old knowledge was dead。But how did the new knowledge arise？ Here， Wootton is sadly less detailed， talking a little about the various uses of Torricelli's experiment。 And of course， the printing press played a key role in bringing down the price of books and allowing precise copies of complex technical diagrams， something scribes were hopeless at reproducing accurately。 But where there should be evidence， there is mostly invective against postmodern relativists。Now I'll admit that I'm part of the science and technology studies tradition Wootton rails against。 He's right that the Strong Programme is often poorly used， and that relativism misses the key ability of science to accurately describe the natural world。 Yet， even a sophisticated realism has trouble getting out of the recursive trap that 'successful science accurately describes the natural world， which we know because of successful science， which has been shown to accurately describe the natural world， etc"。 There were experimenters prior to Galileo， but as Wootton discusses， their discoveries died， because they did not exist in a social context which allowed for scientific discovery。 。。。more
Jonathan Hall
，
An important book to read in the history of science on the beginnings of modern science。 While well-written and full of interesting things， previous knowledge is needed to make sense of the broad scope and frequent academic historiographical arguments。 It will make you rethink every textbook or popular book on the subject。
Jacob Olshansky
，
A worthwhile read that explores the circumstances that gave rise to the scientific revolution and makes a strong argument for the uniqueness and importance of this revolution。 However， the book also dwells a bit too long on details of historiography and is full of long tangents aimed at undermining other historians' and philosophers' views。 Furthermore， I felt like there were significant organizational issues within each section。 The author jumped around from one topic to another and went on lon A worthwhile read that explores the circumstances that gave rise to the scientific revolution and makes a strong argument for the uniqueness and importance of this revolution。 However， the book also dwells a bit too long on details of historiography and is full of long tangents aimed at undermining other historians' and philosophers' views。 Furthermore， I felt like there were significant organizational issues within each section。 The author jumped around from one topic to another and went on long meandering tangents。 This book is at its best describing the experiments of early scientists and in what historical context they were working， it could just use some trimming。 。。。more
William
，
I have a undergrad degree in Chemistry， and yet I felt inadequate in trying to keep up with the way the info was delivered。 Maybe the chaos coming from a very busy mind of the author？
Ishmael Soledad
，
Dense， hard going at times but totally engrossing。 Worth the effort。
Rebecca Grace
，
There was some really good stuff in here， most notably discussion about how the language of science evolved （evidence， proof， theory， hypothesis， experiential and then experimental， etc。） and developed along with the new ways of thinking and looking at the world。 However， this is SUCH a dry， academic read that I could only take it in small doses。 A convoluted and tortuous writing style plus constant bickering with the views of rival science historians reminded me of a crazy professor out mowing There was some really good stuff in here， most notably discussion about how the language of science evolved （evidence， proof， theory， hypothesis， experiential and then experimental， etc。） and developed along with the new ways of thinking and looking at the world。 However， this is SUCH a dry， academic read that I could only take it in small doses。 A convoluted and tortuous writing style plus constant bickering with the views of rival science historians reminded me of a crazy professor out mowing his lawn， rehashing arguments with his adversaries except THIS time he bests them every time。。。 I wish he had just told the story of the invention of science， as promised by the book title。 A more accurate title for what actually lies between the covers of this book would be "My Fellow Historians Are All Stupid: An Attack On Other Scholars' Views of Science History。" 。。。more
Xin
，
This book is very heavy on the historical， philosophical， anthropological， even linguistic aspects of the “history” of sciences， yet without solid understanding of the sciences beneath those tumultuous changes and the mathematics that linking them together。 It’s more of a general history book by a historian not a scientific book about the true history， essence， and beginning of science。 A complete joke and waste of time。 Don’t read it if you are truly interested in the beginning of sciences。
David
，
I enjoyed this book， but it was probably twice the length it needed to be。This is an interesting look at the scientific revolution providing an overview as to the progress of science in all of its forms from the 1400s to the 1700s。I learnt plenty from this read and really felt like I was less naive about my profession for reading it。 The author is very enthusiastic， however， you may need to have a PhD in the history of science to follow it， which I something I most certainly don't have。It is an I enjoyed this book， but it was probably twice the length it needed to be。This is an interesting look at the scientific revolution providing an overview as to the progress of science in all of its forms from the 1400s to the 1700s。I learnt plenty from this read and really felt like I was less naive about my profession for reading it。 The author is very enthusiastic， however， you may need to have a PhD in the history of science to follow it， which I something I most certainly don't have。It is an interesting book but it isn't popular science。 You will be better for reading it， but it will make your head hurt and occasionally regret opening the first page。 。。。more
Silvio
，