Skip to main content

Iwan Rhys Morus - Five Way Interview

Iwan Rhys Morus is a professor of history at Aberystwyth University, specializing in the history of science. He’s written a number of books, including Frankenstein’s Children (1998), Michael Faraday and the Electrical Century (2004), When Physics Became King (2005), Shocking Bodies (2011), Nikola Tesla and the Electrical Future (2019), and most recently How The Victorians Took Us To The Moon (2022). He studied Natural Science at Emmanuel College, Cambridge before moving on to do a PhD there in the history and philosophy of science. He is a fellow of the Royal Historical Society and the Learned Society of Wales.

• Why science and technology?

As a historian of science, I spend a lot of time trying to understand the relationship between science, technology, and culture, particularly for the nineteenth century. It’s important, I think, because our contemporary world is entirely dependent on scientific and technological systems that are often invisible to most people. We just don’t think about what makes our smartphones work, or even how the water comes out of our taps. I’m interested in getting at how this came about – how it really came about rather than repeating fairy tales about the inevitability of scientific progress. This matters, I think, because understanding the origins of techno-scientific expertise is essential if we’re to properly defend it in a world in which it’s increasingly under threat.

• Why this book?

I’ve become increasingly interested recently in the history of the future – how people in the past have imagined their future – and that’s really what this book is about: the way in which the Victorians invented the future in the way that we think about it now. The book looks at the ingredients out of which the Victorian future was made, hence the conceit that the Victorians took us to the Moon. They didn’t really, of course, but they did, in the sense that they created the mindset, which we still have, that such things are technologically feasible. As with understanding the cultural origins of modern science and technology, I think that understanding the cultural origins of that way of thinking about the future matters, particularly as we face a future of existential crises.

• You are critical in the book of the tie between Victorian technology and empire - do you think we would have our current level of science and technology if there had been no British Empire?

I think that’s an impossible question to answer. Without getting into questions of right and wrong, I do think that it’s important to acknowledge that our current scientific institutions and much of our ways of thinking about science and technology, have imperial roots. Understanding that is the first step towards taking a hard look at the way we do things now and deciding whether we might want to do things differently.

• What’s next?

Aliens. The history of aliens and extra-terrestrial life is what’s next.

• What’s exciting you at the moment?

Christmas, obviously, since I’m a sucker for Christmas! Seriously, there’s been a flurry of recent advances and breakthroughs in cancer research which I’m hopeful signal a revolution in cancer therapy.

Interview by Brian Clegg - See all of Brian's online articles or subscribe to a digest free here

Labels:

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

It's On You - Nick Chater and George Loewenstein *****

Going on the cover you might think this was a political polemic - and admittedly there's an element of that - but the reason it's so good is quite different. It shows how behavioural economics and social psychology have led us astray by putting the focus way too much on individuals. A particular target is the concept of nudges which (as described in Brainjacking ) have been hugely over-rated. But overall the key problem ties to another psychological concept: framing. Huge kudos to both Nick Chater and George Loewenstein - a behavioural scientist and an economics and psychology professor - for having the guts to take on the flaws in their own earlier work and that of colleagues, because they make clear just how limited and potentially dangerous is the belief that individuals changing their behaviour can solve large-scale problems. The main thesis of the book is that there are two ways to approach the major problems we face - an 'i-frame' where we focus on the individual ...
Post a Comment
Read more

Introducing Artificial Intelligence – Henry Brighton & Howard Selina ****

It is almost impossible to rate these relentlessly hip books – they are pure marmite*. The huge  Introducing  … series (a vast range of books covering everything from Quantum Theory to Islam), previously known as …  for Beginners , puts across the message in a style that owes as much to Terry Gilliam and pop art as it does to popular science. Pretty well every page features large graphics with speech bubbles that are supposed to emphasise the point. Funnily,  Introducing Artificial Intelligence  is both a good and bad example of the series. Let’s get the bad bits out of the way first. The illustrators of these books are very variable, and I didn’t particularly like the pictures here. They did add something – the illustrations in these books always have a lot of information content, rather than being window dressing – but they seemed more detached from the text and rather lacking in the oomph the best versions have. The other real problem is that...
Post a Comment
Read more

The Laws of Thought - Tom Griffiths *****

In giving us a history of attempts to explain our thinking abilities, Tom Griffiths demonstrates an excellent ability to pitch information just right for the informed general reader.  We begin with Aristotelian logic and the way Boole and others transformed it into a kind of arithmetic before a first introduction of computing and theories of language. Griffiths covers a surprising amount of ground - we don't just get, for instance, the obvious figures of Turing, von Neumann and Shannon, but the interaction between the computing pioneers and those concerned with trying to understand the way we think - for example in the work of Jerome Bruner, of whom I confess I'd never heard.  This would prove to be the case with a whole host of people who have made interesting contributions to the understanding of human thought processes. Sometimes their theories were contradictory - this isn't an easy field to successfully observe - but always they were interesting. But for me, at least, ...
Post a Comment
Read more