Skip to main content

The Rise of Science - Peter Shaver ***

This is a bit of weird one. The book combines history and philosophy of science with everything from an assessment of religion to futurology and it's hard to see how it all fits together.

We begin with the history bit. In an 84-page section, Peter Shaver takes us on a whirlwind tour of the entire history of science. It's too long to be compact, but too short to develop any interesting stories. We then go on to a rather laboured collection of requirements for knowledge elicitation (things like curiosity, imagination, determination and so forth), an exploration of the nature of science today and a brief consideration of the future.

Throughout, the presentation is very summary (except, perhaps for those requirements for knowledge, which seem to go on too long - but that may be because they themselves are too summary). We end up with a collection of facts - never getting into enough depth and lacking any sense of narrative flow. There is plenty of information here but it could almost be bullet points or PowerPoint slides. And while there are a few factoids that stand out (the length of the Great Wall of China and the fact that 90 per cent of the scientists who ever lived are alive today, for example), a fair amount of the material feels distinctly ‘tell me something I don’t know‘, like ‘the Internet and telecommunications revolution have dramatically changed our world.‘

Although history of science is important to the development of Shaver's book, the content can be mixed in its accuracy. We are told that Pythagoras was responsible for the Pythagorean theorem (we don't know who was, but it certainly wasn't Pythagoras), that Lippershey invented the telescope (he didn't), that Bruno was burned at the stake 'in part for being a proponent of the heliocentric model' (it wasn't the reason), that Newton was first raised by 'his parents' (his father died before he was born) and, remarkably, Shaver manages to describe the development of the laser without mentioning either of two main laser pioneers, Gould and Maiman.

Sitting particularly uncomfortably with the rest is a distinctly Janet and John set of descriptions of world religions (supposedly there to highlight the conflict between religion and science, though little is done to follow this thesis up). My favourite part was ‘Another schism with the Catholic Church was caused by England’s Henry VIII, who wanted a new wife; the result was the new Church of England.’ This could have come straight from the parody history book 1066 And All That.

I struggle to understand who this book is aimed at or what it's supposed to do for the reader. A far better exploration of how science came into being is David Wooton's The Invention of Science. There's no doubt that The Rise of Science does more than Wooton's book by trying to relate science to modern society, to put it into a wider context and to explore just what science is. But the way the book is put together does not help it in this purpose. Frustrating.
Paperback:  

Kindle:  
Using these links earns us commission at no cost to you
Review by Brian Clegg
Labels:

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Mathematics with Love – Mary Stopes-Roe *****

Admittedly it’s early days (this review is written in January), but this, for me, is the surprise hit of the year so far! I approached this book with trepidation, but found it absolutely delightful. It is described on the cover as the “courtship correspondence of Barnes Wallis, inventor of the bouncing bomb”, and contains a series of letters between Wallis and his cousin and eventual wife Molly Bloxham, along with some useful annotation by their daughter, Mary. The courtship itself is not without difficulties, as Wallis was 18 years older than the 17-year-old Molly at the start of the correspondence, and her father, not surprisingly, wasn’t too pleased about the interest of such an elderly suitor, but that isn’t the only reason the letters are interesting – it’s also because of maths, and Wallis’s position in the UK as the engineering hero of the Second World War. (Incidentally, it seemed very strange to see letters addressed to “Barnes” – I had always assumed Barnes Wallis was a ...
Post a Comment
Read more

Why Nobody Understands Quantum Physics - Frank Verstraete and Céline Broeckaert **

It's with a heavy heart that I have to say that I could not get on with this book. The structure is all over the place, while the content veers from childish remarks to unexplained jargon. Frank Versraete is a highly regarded physicist and knows what he’s talking about - but unfortunately, physics professors are not always the best people to explain physics to a general audience and, possibly contributed to by this being a translation, I thought this book simply doesn’t work. A small issue is that there are few historical inaccuracies, but that’s often the case when scientists write history of science, and that’s not the main part of the book so I would have overlooked it. As an example, we are told that Newton's apple story originated with Voltaire. Yet Newton himself mentioned the apple story to William Stukeley in 1726. He may have made it up - but he certainly originated it, not Voltaire. We are also told that ‘Galileo discovered the counterintuitive law behind a swinging o...
Post a Comment
Read more

On Time - Jim Al-Khalili *****

By a small margin Jim Al-Khalili's The World According to Physics is my favourite of his books, both because the 'three pillars' concept at its heart works so well - but also because it's short. On Time is somewhat heavier, but thankfully not a wrist-buster. It might seem at first sight odd that a book on a subset of physics is considerably longer than one covering the whole thing, but time is one of those subjects that inevitably involves considerable complexities and needs depth. As Al-Khalili establishes, it's hard to think of any other scientific concept where our perception of it - what he refers to as manifest time or psychological time - is so different from the view from physics. Some physicists go so far as to suggest that time doesn't exist at all. In the book, Al-Khalili sets out (to my mind quite successfully) both to explain why they think this is the case, but also why it's not the best interpretation of time. I'd certainly note that I...
Post a Comment
Read more