To Explain the World: The Discovery of Modern Science
- Downloads：5088
- Type：Epub+TxT+PDF+Mobi
- Create Date：2021-09-10 09:52:32
- Update Date：2025-09-06
- Status：finish
- Author：Steven Weinberg
- ISBN：0141980877
- Environment：PC/Android/iPhone/iPad/Kindle
- Download
Summary
In To Explain the World， pre-eminent theoretical physicist Steven Weinberg offers a rich and irreverent history of science from a unique perspective - that of a scientist。 Moving from ancient Miletus to medieval Baghdad to Oxford， and from the Museum of Alexandria to the Royal Society of London， he shows that the scientists of the past not only did not understand what we understand about the world - they did not understand what there is to understand。 Yet eventually， through the struggle to solve such mysteries as the backward movement of the planets and the rise and fall of tides， the modern discipline of science emerged。
Reviews
Soné Kotze
，
Quite literally painful to read。 Dry， technical and onerous。 That probably means that I'm just not intelligent enough for this book。 Also， I think the subtitle might be a bit misleading。 The vast majority of this book is about astronomy， essentially。 Not the "discovery of modern science"。 Although once again， I admit that I may just be too simple-minded to see if that ends up being the same thing。 Ashamed to say it broke my entire 2021 reading stride because I'm too proud not to finish a book o Quite literally painful to read。 Dry， technical and onerous。 That probably means that I'm just not intelligent enough for this book。 Also， I think the subtitle might be a bit misleading。 The vast majority of this book is about astronomy， essentially。 Not the "discovery of modern science"。 Although once again， I admit that I may just be too simple-minded to see if that ends up being the same thing。 Ashamed to say it broke my entire 2021 reading stride because I'm too proud not to finish a book once I've started， even though it's unenjoyable to read。 。。。more
Daniel Clausen
，
I don't think I have the patience or the background in science to understand this book。 I had to read this book much slower than I would have liked。 In addition， I had to puzzle over parts of it a few times before I got it。 In some instances， I didn't get the material。 That being said， I think this would have been a great read had I had some background in the material beforehand。 Perhaps this is a "read again later on down the line" type of book。 In any event， I wouldn't hesitate to recommend th I don't think I have the patience or the background in science to understand this book。 I had to read this book much slower than I would have liked。 In addition， I had to puzzle over parts of it a few times before I got it。 In some instances， I didn't get the material。 That being said， I think this would have been a great read had I had some background in the material beforehand。 Perhaps this is a "read again later on down the line" type of book。 In any event， I wouldn't hesitate to recommend this book to people who love the history of science。 。。。more
Rudy van der Hoeven
，
Why mention all these long-dead Greeks when only one single line of their writings is known？I really liked his many discussions on YouTube and that is the reason I got this book hoping to learn something。 Reminds me a bit about a very boring history teacher who just forced us to remember years and events without telling us about the why and how。2021 Read a boring book。
Artem Dombrovsky
，
Weinberg ofrece un recorrido ameno y didáctico por la Cosmología hasta Newton。 No obstante， su opinión personal acerca de los pensadores que se equivocaron en sus teorías resulta excesivamente anacrónica pues les presupone métodos que aún estaban por descubrir。Wienberg advierte en el prólogo que no es historiador ni filósofo pero se aventura con opniones fuera del alcance de su área de conocimiento。 Da la sensación de un científico prepotente que cree tener siempre la razón al argumentar de mane Weinberg ofrece un recorrido ameno y didáctico por la Cosmología hasta Newton。 No obstante， su opinión personal acerca de los pensadores que se equivocaron en sus teorías resulta excesivamente anacrónica pues les presupone métodos que aún estaban por descubrir。Wienberg advierte en el prólogo que no es historiador ni filósofo pero se aventura con opniones fuera del alcance de su área de conocimiento。 Da la sensación de un científico prepotente que cree tener siempre la razón al argumentar de manera lógicamente consecuente。 Se olvida completamente de la importancia de la hermenéutica。Aún con esta crítica el lector que quiera introducirse en el fascinante mundo de la historia de la ciencia encontrará un texto riguroso y fácil de leer。 。。。more
belshikun
，
Lots of interesting information that I hadn't encountered before。 The most valuable part of this book is probably that it tries to convey how alien the pre-scientific mindset actually was; i。e。 Thomas Aquinas favoring the Aristotelian model of the solar system over the Ptolemaic because it was "founded on reason while the Ptolemaic theory merely agreed with observation。" Imagine thinking like that！It also doesn't fall prey to many of the historical misconceptions the average person has about the Lots of interesting information that I hadn't encountered before。 The most valuable part of this book is probably that it tries to convey how alien the pre-scientific mindset actually was; i。e。 Thomas Aquinas favoring the Aristotelian model of the solar system over the Ptolemaic because it was "founded on reason while the Ptolemaic theory merely agreed with observation。" Imagine thinking like that！It also doesn't fall prey to many of the historical misconceptions the average person has about the scientific revolution， like the idea that Copernicus's heliocentric model was suppressed simply because it went against the bible。 It's more complicated than that; e。g。， for a long time， the Ptolemaic theory simply gave better agreement with observation。 Definitely worth （re）reading。 。。。more
Porter
，
This book does a decent job at stating a broad view of the development of science from Greek antiquity to quantum physics of early to mid 1900s。 Nothing new presented， nor any novel interpretation or explanation of any of these concepts。 It is good for the fact that it combines history with a little bit of the science and math behind some of the ideas。 It does not really touch on a lot of things or ideas and glosses over them so much that it was pointless in mentioning it as the explanation was This book does a decent job at stating a broad view of the development of science from Greek antiquity to quantum physics of early to mid 1900s。 Nothing new presented， nor any novel interpretation or explanation of any of these concepts。 It is good for the fact that it combines history with a little bit of the science and math behind some of the ideas。 It does not really touch on a lot of things or ideas and glosses over them so much that it was pointless in mentioning it as the explanation was so cursory as to be worthless。 Overall a decent read as a first book in science history to get ideas of what books to read further。 Can get most of what the book says in a much more concise form through a timeline of famous scientific thinkers with a little blurb or one liner about their work。 This book has good content but is a tremendously inefficient use of one’s time。 Not mad that I read it， but would I recommend reading it， sort of， depending on what you are looking for and who you are。 If you are new to science it is as good of a read as any of Neil De grasse’s books， but if you are versed somewhat in scientific reading and science history then I would say a definite no。Another reviewer， "Chris" said it best "For working scientists the book offers nothing。 It's not a textbook; it's not a reference; and it's certainly not a model of good popular science writing。" See his review for literally everything I have to say that is wrong with this book。 However， if intended as a book for young children I'd give it a three， but then again Chris made a good point that it is very uninspiring and may well turn would be scientist away from the field。 。。。more
Carles
，
"La religió és un insult a la dignitat humana。 Amb o sense religió sempre hi haurà bona gent fent coses bones i mala gent fent coses dolentes。 Però perquè la bona gent faci coses dolentes fa falta la religió。"Steven Weinberg - Premi Nobel。M’encanta aquest llibre d'història de la ciència。 Abasta des de els filòsofs grecs fins a Newton。Weinberg diu que hauríem de veure els filòsofs grecs més com poetes que com a científics， ja que -tal com explica- mai van sentir la necessitat de verificar， ni tan "La religió és un insult a la dignitat humana。 Amb o sense religió sempre hi haurà bona gent fent coses bones i mala gent fent coses dolentes。 Però perquè la bona gent faci coses dolentes fa falta la religió。"Steven Weinberg - Premi Nobel。M’encanta aquest llibre d'història de la ciència。 Abasta des de els filòsofs grecs fins a Newton。Weinberg diu que hauríem de veure els filòsofs grecs més com poetes que com a científics， ja que -tal com explica- mai van sentir la necessitat de verificar， ni tan sols justificar， les seves teories。“。。。 Hoy en día ponemos a prueba nuestras especulaciones acerca de la naturaleza mediante teorías ya existentes para sacar conclusiones más o menos precisas que pueden ser puestas a prueba a través de la observación， algo que no ocurría con los griegos de la Antigüedad， ni con muchos de sus sucesores， por una razón muy sencilla: nunca habían visto que nadie lo hiciera。""Confieso que Aristóteles me parece frecuentemente tedioso， algo que no ocurre con Platón， pero aunque a menudo Aristóteles está equivocado， no resulta estúpido， cosa que sí ocurre a veces con Platón。"Arquímedes és dels pocs que se'n salven。A la pàgina 55 diu: "El científico-tecnólogo más impresionante de la era helenística （o quizá de cualquier época） fue Arquímedes。" 。。。more
Atamas Natalia
，
Автор - блискучий вчений， геній， Нобелівський лауреат， справжна легенда у фізиці елементарних частинок та прекрасний популяризатор。 На жаль， українською перекладена тільки ця його книга。Вона написана на основі циклу лекцій з історії фізики та астрономії （період з давніх елінських та римських часів і до Ньютона）， які автор читав у Техаському університеті。 Як сам він чесно зазначає у передмові "。。。Особливо церемонитись я не маю наміру"。 Це справді так。 Автор - це такий жовчний старигань， який уїдл Автор - блискучий вчений， геній， Нобелівський лауреат， справжна легенда у фізиці елементарних частинок та прекрасний популяризатор。 На жаль， українською перекладена тільки ця його книга。Вона написана на основі циклу лекцій з історії фізики та астрономії （період з давніх елінських та римських часів і до Ньютона）， які автор читав у Техаському університеті。 Як сам він чесно зазначає у передмові "。。。Особливо церемонитись я не маю наміру"。 Це справді так。 Автор - це такий жовчний старигань， який уїдливо з точки зору сучасного наукового методу критикує та копає древніх філософів， поетів， астрономів та алхіміків。 Він з задоволенням розбирає по косточках Аристотеля， Платона， Птолемея， "александрійську школу"， від Бекона взагалі камня не залишає， бурчить щодо Декарта та трохи Коперника。 А от Галілеєм та Ньютоном він справді захоплюється， і шанобливо відмічає скурпульозність та точність спостережень Тіхо Браге。 Про середньовічних арабів часів Аббасидського халіфату теж пише більш-менш спокійно， але це， мабудь тому， що він небагато читав їх першоджерел。Більше чверті книжки складають "Технічні примітки"。 Тут автор дає собі волю。 Він показує доведення теореми Фалеса， пише про заломлення світла， місячний паралакс， гармонію у музиці， граничну швідкість， занурені тіла Архимеда， розповідає， як вираховували за часів Арістарха розміри Сонця та Місяця та відстані до них і тому подібне。 Тут купа формул， чисел， фізики та математики。 Як на мене， книжку треба читати саме разом з "Примітками"， тоді вона отримує відповідну глибину， але це для тих， хто не боїться формул та чисел。Власне， на Ньютоні автор і закінчує， і ， чесно кажучи， це було трохи зненацька。 Від Ньютона， на його погляд， і почалася сучасна наука， як вона є。 。。。more
Faa'ezeh
，
I liked this one！Even though the book itself didn't have new information or wasn't that much interesting， but because of the way Steven Weinberg was introduced to me， I was interested throughout the reading。 Previous semester， one of my best professors intended to teach us Steven Weinberg's lectures on quantum mechanics because "it was a well and newly written textbook on the subject by a Nobel laureate"。 He admired him so much！The other class's professor changed his mind anyways and we studied I liked this one！Even though the book itself didn't have new information or wasn't that much interesting， but because of the way Steven Weinberg was introduced to me， I was interested throughout the reading。 Previous semester， one of my best professors intended to teach us Steven Weinberg's lectures on quantum mechanics because "it was a well and newly written textbook on the subject by a Nobel laureate"。 He admired him so much！The other class's professor changed his mind anyways and we studied the famous Sakurai's textbook， but the name remained in my mind。A couple of weeks ago I came across this book and just enjoyed everything about it。 。。。more
Jared Friedl
，
I think Weinberg does ok in his stated goal of explaining “how we came to learn how to learn about the world。” His commentary to this end is concentrated in a few small spots， but maybe someone more versed in the wider history of science could determine how well he did in his specific choice of historic details included in the book， how this choice emphasized “learning to learn” any more than a generic account of the important developments in scientific history。 I’m sure it’s not meant to be an I think Weinberg does ok in his stated goal of explaining “how we came to learn how to learn about the world。” His commentary to this end is concentrated in a few small spots， but maybe someone more versed in the wider history of science could determine how well he did in his specific choice of historic details included in the book， how this choice emphasized “learning to learn” any more than a generic account of the important developments in scientific history。 I’m sure it’s not meant to be an exhaustive history of science， more of an accessible overview of the important schools of thought in physics up to and including Newton， which I think it does well。 As a physicist rather than a historian， I think the technical notes Weinberg provides give the book an additional level of depth。 。。。more
Richard Marney
，
To appreciate fully this book’s value， the reader must possess a fairly advanced grasp of the writers and their work cited in the text。 Otherwise， much of the discussion goes right over your head （as in my case）。 For example， how to critique the author’s exposition and criticism of Bacon and Descartes， which leads to the author’s conclusion that both were “overrated”， without having read （and achieved a deep understanding of） their work？ Simply not possible。 Given this challenge for the uninitia To appreciate fully this book’s value， the reader must possess a fairly advanced grasp of the writers and their work cited in the text。 Otherwise， much of the discussion goes right over your head （as in my case）。 For example， how to critique the author’s exposition and criticism of Bacon and Descartes， which leads to the author’s conclusion that both were “overrated”， without having read （and achieved a deep understanding of） their work？ Simply not possible。 Given this challenge for the uninitiated reader， the book risks dissolving into a history book， consisting of dates， names and sources。 This is not the authors intent I surmised。 Therefore， at least in my case， the criticism rests on the lack of preparation （mine 😎） and not the text of the work。 I intend to bone up on subject matter， if not read the cited authors in the original， in the hope of being able to do better the next time！ 。。。more
Virtual
，
This book though providing points about the evolution of science by analyzing the endeavors of big-name researchers from different historical periods， has its strongest suit in presenting science as a cumulative work of many people， as an ironically chaotic effort of people that result in an orderly explanation of the world。 What kept me reading this was not necessarily the hard science， the mathematical explanations evade my understanding， the interesting thing for me was the simple presentatio This book though providing points about the evolution of science by analyzing the endeavors of big-name researchers from different historical periods， has its strongest suit in presenting science as a cumulative work of many people， as an ironically chaotic effort of people that result in an orderly explanation of the world。 What kept me reading this was not necessarily the hard science， the mathematical explanations evade my understanding， the interesting thing for me was the simple presentation of science not as a religion of sorts but presenting science as it is， a grueling effort that is riddled by misunderstandings， complicated experiments and pure guesswork at times， provided that you always check back on it all with an experiment。 If you want to be more familiar with how science is done， this book is for you。 。。。more
CobkinG
，
El desarrollo de la ciencia desde Tales hasta Newton con un epílogo que conduce hasta el momento actual aprovechando para darle algún que otro palo a Aristóteles y sobre todo a Platón （ le llama esnob hasta en tres ocasiones）， pero ojo que el autor avisa desde el primer momento que la comparacion se hace desde su punto de vista， el de un físico actual， aunque igualmente innecesario me parece juzgar a aquellos que intentaron tener un conocimiento global sin contemplar la experimentación。 No me pa El desarrollo de la ciencia desde Tales hasta Newton con un epílogo que conduce hasta el momento actual aprovechando para darle algún que otro palo a Aristóteles y sobre todo a Platón （ le llama esnob hasta en tres ocasiones）， pero ojo que el autor avisa desde el primer momento que la comparacion se hace desde su punto de vista， el de un físico actual， aunque igualmente innecesario me parece juzgar a aquellos que intentaron tener un conocimiento global sin contemplar la experimentación。 No me parece algo negativo pero sí a tener en cuenta， es un recorrido espectacular por la historia de lo que hoy conocemos como ciencia。 。。。more
Julen Biguri
，
Pese a cierta soberbia del autor y al tono divulgativo general， me ha sorprendido para bien el giro contra-teleológico y antipositivista final。
Ankit
，
The book is extremely drive even for someone who likes mathematics and science。 It is filled with judgment of scientists/philosophers of the past， and maybe too much detail than is interesting。 Had to abandon this one。 Only saving grace was the technical notes at the end of the book which was a refresher on college mathematics and physics
John Stuckey
，
Somehow makes science boring。。。 Could have been put together in a way to make it stay interesting。 Just a very dry read。
Jamie
，
Steven Weinberg is a physicist and Nobel Prize winner at the University of Texas， and in To Explain the World he discusses the development of math and physics from the ancient Greeks to Isaac Newton。 The Greeks tried to understand the world using logic and deduction; experimentation was not part of their methodology。 They were not scientists in the way that we use that term today， or as Weinberg says， “it is better to think of them not as physicists or scientists or even philosophers， but as poe Steven Weinberg is a physicist and Nobel Prize winner at the University of Texas， and in To Explain the World he discusses the development of math and physics from the ancient Greeks to Isaac Newton。 The Greeks tried to understand the world using logic and deduction; experimentation was not part of their methodology。 They were not scientists in the way that we use that term today， or as Weinberg says， “it is better to think of them not as physicists or scientists or even philosophers， but as poets。” These early attempts to understand the world were more useful as a framework for thought than as practical science， but could occasionally rise to greatness， as when Eratosthenes calculated the circumference of the earth to within 1。4% of its actual value。 Weinberg’s discussion of this shows that Eratosthenes actually made several incorrect assumptions in his calculation， but as luck would have it they ended up canceling each other out and decreasing the amount of error rather than increasing it。Claudius Ptolemy is often remembered today as the just the guy who got astronomy wrong， assuming the earth rather than the sun was the center of the solar system （and the universe， for that matter）。 This does him an injustice， because he was one science’s greatest minds。 In an age before telescopes allowed precise observations an earthcentric cosmology was a reasonable assumption， and it should not be forgotten that the Ptolemaic system did allow for reliable predictions of the locations of the planets and times of eclipses。 Complicating things was that Ptolemy was constrained by philosophy and history to maintain that all orbits must be perfect circles。 His solution was complicated but brilliant， and Weinberg does a fine job explaining all the adjustments he had to make in order for the calculations to turn out correctly。 There are deferrents and equants， and of course， epicycles。 It is a remarkable system， complicated yet elegant， and it was used used successfully for fourteen hundred years。The book does a good job reminding us of the debt we own to Islamic civilization for saving many of the great works of Greek and Roman science， philosophy， and literature。 More than just preserving， they expanded upon them with commentaries and new mathematical tables。 It was one of history’s tragedies that the ruling Islamic dynasty which had supported science was overthrown by an ignorant， superstitious clan who suspected that all knowledge outside the Qu’ran was heretical， and suppressed the centers of science and learning。 Weinberg makes the wry comment， “while al-Rashid and al-Ma'mun were delving into Greek and Persian philosophy， their contemporaries in the West， Charlemagne and his lords， were reportedly dabbling in the art of writing their name。" This is actually unfair to Charlemagne; although he never learned to write （reading and writing are two separate skills）， he was fluent in both his native Old High German and Latin， and could understand spoken Ancient Greek。Moving into the Middle Ages and Renaissance the book gives credit to the thinkers who were starting to delve more deeply into the workings of the world。 With Galileo and Copernicus Weinberg explains what they saw and how the interpreted things。 One of the unresolved questions of the Ptolemaic system was the phases of Venus; the planet obviously gets brighter and dimmer through the year， something Ptolemaic cosmology could not account for， but which had a simple explanation if both the Earth and Venus orbit the sun。 For all his brilliance Galileo too was still constrained by history and convention into maintaining that orbits must be circular， and it took Copernicus to recognize that they are elliptical。 Religion， both Catholic and Protestant， exerted a baleful influence on scientific progress: Copernicus’s views were not published until after his death， and Galileo’s persecution by the Church is well known （an excellent book on this subject is The Crime of Galileo by Giorgio de Santillana）。The book ends with Newton and his world-changing discoveries。 There is a discussion of who invented calculus， Newton or Liebnitz， with the conclusion that it seemed to have been discovered independently by both men， but each of them engaged in rather sordid and underhanded dealings in trying to promote their own claims。 It is also interesting that Newton’s famous three laws of motion were never stated in the form we are familiar with today; it took decades before someone extracted the pithy statements we know from Newton’s obscure and cumbersome Latin prose。 Nevertheless Newton changed everything， and although there was some resistance to his Principia Mathematica， most intellectuals immediately recognized as the groundbreaking work it was。 The Ptolemaic system was finally retired by the more accurate Newtonian cosmology， but even that did not account for some of the movements of planets。 A great deal of additional work was required。 For instance， it was by observing deviations in Uranus’s orbit that the planet Neptune was first predicted and then discovered。 And in the twentieth century， Einstein’s theories of relativity helped resolved some additional irregularities in the Newtonian predictions。At the end of the text there are about a hundred pages of math and physics explaining the logic underpinning many of the ideas discussed in this book。 They are pitched at the level of high school math and science， but are good refreshers for people who have have not thought about such things in years。I found the book interesting and informative。 Other reviewers， with a more technical approach to the text， seem to have found it inadequate in many areas。 For those with a general interest in the subject Weinberg provides a good introduction， but those who are already physicists， mathematicians， or astronomers are not like to learn anything new。 。。。more
Parker Pavlicek
，
If you like a list of names and dates rattled off with little connection for the sake of just listing names （particularly Greek names） then this book is for you。 There was no flow to the book and it just seemed like he was trying to fit as many names as possible into the book regardless of how little their contribution to science was。 Sure， it is important to remember these people - but let's leave that to Wikipedia。 Included were many seemingly random tangents that just destroyed what little fl If you like a list of names and dates rattled off with little connection for the sake of just listing names （particularly Greek names） then this book is for you。 There was no flow to the book and it just seemed like he was trying to fit as many names as possible into the book regardless of how little their contribution to science was。 Sure， it is important to remember these people - but let's leave that to Wikipedia。 Included were many seemingly random tangents that just destroyed what little flow there actually was to the book。 Much of the book was spent on the Greeks and Medieval scientists （pre-Newton） but only about 12 pages was devoted to 20th century science。 There was just no balance。 。。。more
Omar
，
Apart from a splendid Newton chapter and occasional parallels between the history of science and contemporary physics， this is a publication of insubstantial name-dropping and mildly amusing facts。
Patrick Lum
，
I enjoyed very much that the author outlined what they were doing and how they were going to get there， along with their focuses and possibly their biases along the way。 Unfortunately the book made me feel rather wanting as I often could not follow the various scientific and mathematical concepts and phenomena that were being described in prose - perhaps I am a more visual thinker。 But the general path of history of coming to discover what modern science is became fairly clear， which I found int I enjoyed very much that the author outlined what they were doing and how they were going to get there， along with their focuses and possibly their biases along the way。 Unfortunately the book made me feel rather wanting as I often could not follow the various scientific and mathematical concepts and phenomena that were being described in prose - perhaps I am a more visual thinker。 But the general path of history of coming to discover what modern science is became fairly clear， which I found intriguing and satisfying， if not necessarily entirely comprehensible。 。。。more
Andrey Pletinka
，
Too much mathematical formulas
Daniel Cortes
，
Foi uma ótima experiência e me deu bastante noção de como se deu o avanço da ciência na história， adorei os comentários do escritor sobre as pseudociências， é um livro que mesmo se tratando de um tema que pode ser tão complexo parecer tão simples e gostoso de ler e se ver prosseguindo e tomando forma。
Michael
，
Well written and in a way that even if you're not a sciences-major I think you'll pick most of it up。 I only felt stupid for a very few pages and when the author delved （rarely） too deeply into formulaic explanations in the actual text I just skipped ahead a paragraph。 Thank you Mr。Weinberg I feel more well-rounded having read this book。 Well written and in a way that even if you're not a sciences-major I think you'll pick most of it up。 I only felt stupid for a very few pages and when the author delved （rarely） too deeply into formulaic explanations in the actual text I just skipped ahead a paragraph。 Thank you Mr。Weinberg I feel more well-rounded having read this book。 。。。more
Sohini
，
A dense and intense look into the scientific history of the world but quite captivating at times。
Kara Babcock
，
To Explain the World has been waiting for me on my shelf for a few years。 The trouble with these vast， sweeping histories of science is that， as much as I love them， more acute pop science and pop history books always take priority。 You want to teach me about vaccines？ You want to talk to me about environmental racism？ Hell yeah， I’m down。 But unless you’re Bill Bryson， your hot take on the last 2000-or-so years of Western science can wait。But still， I am trying with some small success to get th To Explain the World has been waiting for me on my shelf for a few years。 The trouble with these vast， sweeping histories of science is that， as much as I love them， more acute pop science and pop history books always take priority。 You want to teach me about vaccines？ You want to talk to me about environmental racism？ Hell yeah， I’m down。 But unless you’re Bill Bryson， your hot take on the last 2000-or-so years of Western science can wait。But still， I am trying with some small success to get through the remaining physical books I have on my to-read shelf so I can make a big， celebratory purchase of many new books。 So I dove into To Explain the World， curious and eager to hear what Weinberg has to say about the “discovery” of science， as he puts it。 Weinberg is refreshingly honest about the subjectivity of his opinion， as well as the limitations of his writing。 As a result， he furnishes us with an interesting and serviceable history—his writing skills do not always allow him to go exactly where he wants， I think， yet overall this book is a good read。If I sound cynical about this book and others like it， it’s only because I’ve read so many of them。 There's a predictable progression of greatest hits: Thales， Aristarchus， Pythagoras， Archimedes， Aristotle … then the medieval era， then the Renaissance， then the Enlightenment。 Weinberg is hardly treading any ground that hasn’t been tread before， and while I appreciate his honesty about this， that doesn’t help me work up a lot of enthusiasm for it。So what makes To Explain the World potentially stand out from among such a saturated subgenre？ A few things， actually！First， Weinberg’s experience as a physicist rather than a science historian means he definitely has an interesting perspective on this history。 At one point， he confesses he has “no idea” how Archimedes accomplished something without calculus， reminding us that we are all incredibly influenced by our upbringing。 Weinberg reminds us that when we look back at the accomplishments of the ancients， we should remember that their conception of the world was incredibly different from ours。 Even if you don’t remember much science from school， even if you didn’t learn much about the scientific method， chances are you learned a lot more about how the natural world works than most of these Greek philosophers knew in their time。 This has nothing to do with intelligence or even with the “progression” of our society—but it does have to do with the differences in how our societies are structured， and the fact that we have developed a systematic approach to society that is far more robust。 Weinberg also cautions us that this remains true well into the centuries we might be tempted to think of as closer to “modern” times。 Even Isaac Newton， to whom Weinberg devotes an entire chapter and lauds as perhaps the single most significant Western scientist， was interested in alchemy and religion as much as he explored what we now silo off as “proper” scientific pursuits。Second， Weinberg is not afraid to get into the weeds of the whys and wherefores。 To his credit， he hides most of showing his work in a Technical Notes appendix （which I admit， to my eternal mathematician shame， I only skimmed most of them）。 Even so， the main body of the book contains perhaps a little more math and science than you might be used to in a pop science book coming from a science communicator or historian。 This is obviously a super subjective thing， so no shade if it’s not for you。 But it is a nice departure from the trend to obscure the technicalities of science behind anecdotes and quips。 Every author must calibrate their explanations to find their chosen balance between accuracy and comprehensibility。 Weinberg leans towards the accurate， and this at least differentiates To Explain the World from the rest of the crowd。Then we have Weinberg’s thesis。 It is perhaps here that he is at his most ambitious。 He cites Kuhn a few times （and even casually drops the fact he met Kuhn once， oooooh）。 Weinberg， as he hints at when he explains the choice of “discovered” rather than “invented” in the subtitle， believes that it isn’t really accidental that we developed science the way we did。 He believes that there is an order to nature that made the development of the scientific method much more likely than not。 To be clear， he is not suggesting a supernatural demiurge at work。 Indeed， while Weinberg remains carefully diplomatic on the science versus religion divide， he suggests that our willingness to remove the supernatural from the explanatory playing field was a key step in the development of modern science。 But really， what he is most proud of as a scientist is the fact that modern science now comprises robust theories that do not belong to any one individual， no matter how many giants’ shoulders that individual belongs to。 Modern physics， his own field， is so complex an undertaking these days that we really can’t prop up the fallacious Great Man theory any longer。I want to conclude with a critique not so much of this book but rather of this subgenre。 Weinberg admits in his introduction that this book focuses on Western science， i。e。， ancient Greece -> the Arab world -> medieval/Renaissance/Enlightenment Europe。 He graciously name-checks China for developing sophisticated science and technology in isolation， for the most part， from the West; he also shouts out to the Indigenous peoples of the Americas。 So at least Weinberg isn’t inadvertently presenting science as a uniquely European discovery。But here’s my critique and my question: why do we keep letting old white dudes write these things （all love to Bill Bryson， but the question stands）？ Deep down， I think I avoided this book—and am somewhat exhausted by such books—because it really is， as I noted earlier， a predictable progression of greatest hits。 I really should be seeking out books written by Chinese historians about science and technology in China。 Or Indigenous authors writing about the Americas， or about Africa， or Australia。 I know these books exist， but if we can have yet more books about the history of European science from white guys， publishers can also print more of the alternatives as well。 Because at the end of the day， even if my viewpoint of the world is radically different from that of “everything is water” Thales， Weinberg’s point is that we can trace a line from there to here。 I am more curious about the cultures and ways of knowing in whose traditions I was not raised， and I would like to see more of those voices represented in our scientific histories and texts。Like I said， that’s not on Weinberg。 He’s doing his best to write what he is qualified to write， and he does a good job at it。 To Explain the World is a book I would recommend， if this is what you want: a detailed， methodical survey of the discovery of Western science， predictable if you’ve seen it before yet still enjoyably unique in some ways。 。。。more
Arturo Herrero
，
Un repaso de los protagonistas y avances desde la antigüedad hasta el concepto de ciencia moderna。 Se centra principalmente en la astronomía， aunque para ello tiene que articular conceptos de filosofía， física， matemáticas， óptica。。。 Tales de Mileto， Aristóteles， Platón， Ptolomeo， Copérnico， Kepler， Galileo， Newton， etc。
R Davies
，
Whenever I pick up a popular science book I am always wary regarding how much of the book I will actually be able to follow due to my general levels of scientific and mathematical illiteracy。 This book， for me fell into the tougher end。 It may only require a little more basic knowledge to appreciate the discussion， but sadly that eludes me！ There is a substantial section at the end filled with Technical notes， which I soon gave up trying to bother with as my eyes glaze over the moment equations Whenever I pick up a popular science book I am always wary regarding how much of the book I will actually be able to follow due to my general levels of scientific and mathematical illiteracy。 This book， for me fell into the tougher end。 It may only require a little more basic knowledge to appreciate the discussion， but sadly that eludes me！ There is a substantial section at the end filled with Technical notes， which I soon gave up trying to bother with as my eyes glaze over the moment equations enter the page。 I accept the limitation on undestanding this is all mine and not the author's however。 Presumably there is only so far an accomplished scientist can dumb down an explanation before it becomes redundant！My preference then is for the stories of scientists and discoveries told through the eye of an historian capable of communicating the big picture， or at least conveying the relative value of certain key developments。 Fortunately the book has these moments too， and Weinberg does convey a useful narrative of （ Western） developments from the Ancient Greeks through to Newton。 He takes the reader through the early milestones of "science" or knowledge development through the Greeks， and introduces the various splits - such as between Aristotelian and Ptolemaic philosophies on the nature of the planets， explaining how they may have made these discoveries and what limited them knowing more。 In the latter question， it was often due to a lack of interest in any form of method-based study。 There was observation， and some theory， but little empiricism then （ though not always possible astronomically obviously ）。 That is the prelude to the Scientific Revolution proper that he begins with Copernicus in the 15th century， at a time when the Renaissance world was beginning to expand its intellect， however slowly， and even just beginning with artistic liberation first。 The fall of Constantinople saw an exodus of intellects flee west， creating centres of scholarly activity in Italy， Germany， UK， but again the evolution of discovery is still slow， and as ever， always impeded by the cowardice and aggression of religious authorities who virulently attacked ideas that made them uncomfortable [ my emphasis here ]。The main focus tends to the exploration and explanations of the planets， the acceptance of heliocentric theory and the consequences for subsequent scientists each building on the observations and data that was available thanks to Copernicus， Brache， Galileo， Descartes， Boyle， Hooke， Hugyens， Newton and the many others during this time。 It culminates of course with Newton's grand finale， the work that would be held within his book on mathematical principles of nature。 An epilogue does briefly summarise some of the next milestones in scientific knowledge through the 18th， 19th and 20th centuries， but the chief focus of the book is this c。250 year spell in western Europe。As I said at the top of my review， I struggled with many portions， having to skip the pages that goes into the technical explanations， to find the digestible paragraphs that could explain why discovery x was important and so forth， but that fault is largely mine， though being conversant in mathematical language will help you get far more out of this book than I was able to。 。。。more
Ross Taylor
，
Interesting read on the development of modern science given the author's unique perspective。 Interesting read on the development of modern science given the author's unique perspective。 。。。more
Marcos Spinoza
，
A través de las paginas se nota la pasión， el amor y el conocimiento que Weinberg tiene de la física。 Si además agregamos que nos habla de un periodo de la historia de la ciencia que es desconocido para la mayoría， el resultado es una obra de arte。Me parece que el mayor logro del libro es romper con prejuicios， sobre el cómo se ha construido nuestra amada física。 No me ha gustado el ultimo capítulo， sobre reduccionismo， entiendo que Weinberg sea un reduccionista convencido， pero siento que está A través de las paginas se nota la pasión， el amor y el conocimiento que Weinberg tiene de la física。 Si además agregamos que nos habla de un periodo de la historia de la ciencia que es desconocido para la mayoría， el resultado es una obra de arte。Me parece que el mayor logro del libro es romper con prejuicios， sobre el cómo se ha construido nuestra amada física。 No me ha gustado el ultimo capítulo， sobre reduccionismo， entiendo que Weinberg sea un reduccionista convencido， pero siento que está de más。 Personalmente creo que el reduccionismo nos aparta de una “verdad”: La abstracción es bella。 ¡Es un libro que se disfruta mucho！ 。。。more
César Villalobos
，