What do you think?
Rate this book
The First Scientist: Anaximander and His Legacy
THIS BOOK WILL NO LONGER BE AVAILABLE AFTER SEPTEMBER 10, 2021. Carlo Rovelli, a leading theoretical physicist, uses the figure of Anaximander as the starting point for an examination of scientific thinking its limits, its strengths, its benefits to humankind, and its controversial relationship with religion. Anaximander, the sixth-century BC Greek philosopher, is often called the first scientist because he was the first to suggest that order in the world was due to natural forces, not supernatural ones. He is the first person known to understand that the Earth floats in space; to believe that the sun, the moon, and the stars rotate around it—seven centuries before Ptolemy; to argue that all animals came from the sea and evolved; and to posit that universal laws control all change in the world. Anaximander taught Pythagoras, who would build on Anaximander’s scientific theories by applying mathematical laws to natural phenomena. In the award-winning The First Anaximander and His Legacy , translated here for the first time in English, Rovelli restores Anaximander to his place in the history of science by carefully reconstructing his theories from what is known to us and examining them in their historical and philosophical contexts. Rovelli demonstrates that Anaximander’s discoveries and theories were decisive influences, putting Western culture on its path toward a scientific revolution. Developing this connection, Rovelli redefines science as a continuous redrawing of our conceptual image of the world. He concludes that scientific thinking—the legacy of Anaximander—is only reliable when it constantly tests the limits of our current knowledge.
256 pages, Hardcover
First published January 1, 2005
378 people are currently reading
4281 people want to read
About the author
Carlo Rovelli
32 books3,986 followersCarlo Rovelli is an Italian theoretical physicist and writer who has worked in Italy and the USA, and currently works in France. His work is mainly in the field of quantum gravity, where he is among the founders of the loop quantum gravity theory. He has also worked in the history and philosophy of science. He collaborates regularly with several Italian newspapers, in particular the cultural supplements of Il Sole 24 Ore and La Repubblica.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 290 reviews
June 16, 2013
The premise of this short book seemed unpromising: a physicist with no formal training in classics or history was apparently claiming that Anaximander, a Greek philosopher about whom almost nothing is known, is the spiritual father of modern science. But, in the event, it was much better than I'd expected. Rovelli is certainly not a historian, but he appears to know Latin and Greek, has read widely, and had enough interesting things to say that he kept me thoroughly entertained. I started this afternoon at Luton airport, and didn't put it down until I finished just now in Geneva.
A large part of the book is concerned with the question of what "science" is, and in what ways it differentiates itself from religion. Rovelli's central argument is that the distinguishing mark of science is that it is always willing to question established authority. This, above all, is why he wants to argue that Anaximander should be considered the founder of the scientific tradition. Anaximander's teacher, according to later authors, was Thales of Miletus; but rather than simply accepting his master's ideas as holy writ and further developing them, Anaximander changed them in many important ways. Even if the story is just a myth - Rovelli is happy to admit that the facts are extremely uncertain - I think he has a good point. This way of reasoning about things is historically unusual. The philosophical/scientific tradition may not have started exactly here, but it began around this point in time, and, if nothing else, Anaximander is a nice way of symbolizing the break with what had gone before.
The book has many thought-provoking examples that I had not previously come across; here is the one I liked most. Rovelli is discussing the question of cultural relativism. Different societies have different belief systems, and on what grounds can we say that one is "better" or "more true" than another? It is fashionable, at least in some circles, to say that the terms make no sense. But Rovelli has a nice case study concerning the Greek mathematician Eratosthenes, who accurately measured the circumference of the Earth in the third century B.C. by comparing the shadows cast at widely separated locations. This part of the story is famous; what I hadn't heard was that a Chinese astronomer performed the same experiment several centuries later, but reached completely different conclusions. The Chinese believed that the Earth was flat, so the astronomer, seeing the different shadows, thought that he had determined the distance to the Sun, which would have been quite close. The interesting thing is what happened when the Chinese and Western traditions finally collided in the early 17th century. The Westerners just smiled at the misapprehensions of the Chinese astronomers; the Chinese, on the other hand, rapidly agreed that they had got it wrong. There was no question of the two accounts being different but equally valid.
If you are interested in the faith/science debate, you may also enjoy Rovelli's book. He comes across as a pleasantly intelligent and open-minded person, something that is unfortunately all too rare in this area.
A large part of the book is concerned with the question of what "science" is, and in what ways it differentiates itself from religion. Rovelli's central argument is that the distinguishing mark of science is that it is always willing to question established authority. This, above all, is why he wants to argue that Anaximander should be considered the founder of the scientific tradition. Anaximander's teacher, according to later authors, was Thales of Miletus; but rather than simply accepting his master's ideas as holy writ and further developing them, Anaximander changed them in many important ways. Even if the story is just a myth - Rovelli is happy to admit that the facts are extremely uncertain - I think he has a good point. This way of reasoning about things is historically unusual. The philosophical/scientific tradition may not have started exactly here, but it began around this point in time, and, if nothing else, Anaximander is a nice way of symbolizing the break with what had gone before.
The book has many thought-provoking examples that I had not previously come across; here is the one I liked most. Rovelli is discussing the question of cultural relativism. Different societies have different belief systems, and on what grounds can we say that one is "better" or "more true" than another? It is fashionable, at least in some circles, to say that the terms make no sense. But Rovelli has a nice case study concerning the Greek mathematician Eratosthenes, who accurately measured the circumference of the Earth in the third century B.C. by comparing the shadows cast at widely separated locations. This part of the story is famous; what I hadn't heard was that a Chinese astronomer performed the same experiment several centuries later, but reached completely different conclusions. The Chinese believed that the Earth was flat, so the astronomer, seeing the different shadows, thought that he had determined the distance to the Sun, which would have been quite close. The interesting thing is what happened when the Chinese and Western traditions finally collided in the early 17th century. The Westerners just smiled at the misapprehensions of the Chinese astronomers; the Chinese, on the other hand, rapidly agreed that they had got it wrong. There was no question of the two accounts being different but equally valid.
If you are interested in the faith/science debate, you may also enjoy Rovelli's book. He comes across as a pleasantly intelligent and open-minded person, something that is unfortunately all too rare in this area.
January 18, 2024
This is another amazing book by an amazing author. Just one amazing thing about the book is the fact that it examines, evaluates, discusses the astonishing scope of a man that we know so little about, a man who lived some 2,600 years ago, a man that many of us have never even heard of. It is impossible to summarise any book in one sentence. But one sentence from this book will stick with me forever:
“The world is infinitely more complicated than the naïve images we create to find our way through it.”
“The world is infinitely more complicated than the naïve images we create to find our way through it.”
September 23, 2019
I was looking for the author’s brief lessons in physics and spotted this book as well. To be honest, I thought this one sounded more interesting than the lessons book, so I grabbed it too. It’s a curious little book.
As someone who doesn’t believe in god, I’m more or less on the same page as the author of this. He is arguing that Anaximander (a Greek philosopher who died about 100 years before Socrates was born) was the father of science. There is a nice bit in this where he runs through some of the other contenders for the title – up to about Newton – and so makes the point, you know, that the title really does depend on what you are going to mean by it.
His reason for picking Anaximander for special mention is that he was a student of Thales, but unlike the expectation that many students and followers would be hyper-protective of their teacher, he felt the highest praise he could provide his master was to prove him wrong. This was and is and will likely remain the greatest strength of the scientific method and the reason it can claim to have done so much to change the world. I believe Aristotle said that as he liked Plato as a friend, he preferred the truth. Now, this really isn’t something that religion can match, as is pointed out repeatedly throughout this book. And as the author says, this has meant that science and religion have increasingly found themselves in separate spheres, where religion’s sphere has been constantly diminishing over time – a situation that has not necessarily brought a sense of joy to the religious.
He mentions some of the martyrs of science along the way too – Hypatia and the library of Alexandria are two examples I still get upset about – but he does this mostly to highlight the social and cultural situation in Ancient Greece that allowed, for a time anyway, for science as a radically critical appraisal of the world to flourish. He also points out, with reference to the murder by the state of Socrates, that this situation of radical doubt and acceptance of alternative viewpoints was hardly universal – the fact Socrates was murdered for blasphemy and corrupting the youth of Athens makes his point, and is, of course, something else I still haven’t quite gotten over.
Greece is presented as being unique because it sat betwixt and between other powerful civilisations – with Egypt, for instance, proving much older than the Greeks even believed the world to have been. The constant friction these other civilisations provided allowed room in Greece for a kind of radical doubt.
Again, this is clearly a point of difference with religion – based as it is on faith. I have to say that I find certainty one of the more terrifying forces in the universe. Those who ‘know’ are too often wild and terrifying beasts, and the more certain their knowledge, the more terrifying they tend to be - religious or not. The crime isn't so much religion, I feel, but certainty. As my friend Yeats has it, 'the best lack all conviction while the worst are filled with a passionate intensity'.
The end of this book discusses theories for the origin of religion, and, as often happens when I read such theories, I’m left feeling unconvinced. I started reading The Bicameral Mind last year, but felt it was, as the author here says about other things – an interesting idea, but also that ideas are two-a-penny, and not nearly enough on their own. He appears to have more time for the bicameral mind than I did, but it isn't entirely clear to me why. Personally, I tend to think that humans are narrative centred creatures – we make meaning from the scraps of evidence we find about us, and that is one of the key reasons why science’s radical doubt proves so important for us, because without it we will, quite literally, believe just about anything.
This is an interesting wee book - it is rather short and yet covers a lot of ground. Well worth taking a look, I think.
As someone who doesn’t believe in god, I’m more or less on the same page as the author of this. He is arguing that Anaximander (a Greek philosopher who died about 100 years before Socrates was born) was the father of science. There is a nice bit in this where he runs through some of the other contenders for the title – up to about Newton – and so makes the point, you know, that the title really does depend on what you are going to mean by it.
His reason for picking Anaximander for special mention is that he was a student of Thales, but unlike the expectation that many students and followers would be hyper-protective of their teacher, he felt the highest praise he could provide his master was to prove him wrong. This was and is and will likely remain the greatest strength of the scientific method and the reason it can claim to have done so much to change the world. I believe Aristotle said that as he liked Plato as a friend, he preferred the truth. Now, this really isn’t something that religion can match, as is pointed out repeatedly throughout this book. And as the author says, this has meant that science and religion have increasingly found themselves in separate spheres, where religion’s sphere has been constantly diminishing over time – a situation that has not necessarily brought a sense of joy to the religious.
He mentions some of the martyrs of science along the way too – Hypatia and the library of Alexandria are two examples I still get upset about – but he does this mostly to highlight the social and cultural situation in Ancient Greece that allowed, for a time anyway, for science as a radically critical appraisal of the world to flourish. He also points out, with reference to the murder by the state of Socrates, that this situation of radical doubt and acceptance of alternative viewpoints was hardly universal – the fact Socrates was murdered for blasphemy and corrupting the youth of Athens makes his point, and is, of course, something else I still haven’t quite gotten over.
Greece is presented as being unique because it sat betwixt and between other powerful civilisations – with Egypt, for instance, proving much older than the Greeks even believed the world to have been. The constant friction these other civilisations provided allowed room in Greece for a kind of radical doubt.
Again, this is clearly a point of difference with religion – based as it is on faith. I have to say that I find certainty one of the more terrifying forces in the universe. Those who ‘know’ are too often wild and terrifying beasts, and the more certain their knowledge, the more terrifying they tend to be - religious or not. The crime isn't so much religion, I feel, but certainty. As my friend Yeats has it, 'the best lack all conviction while the worst are filled with a passionate intensity'.
The end of this book discusses theories for the origin of religion, and, as often happens when I read such theories, I’m left feeling unconvinced. I started reading The Bicameral Mind last year, but felt it was, as the author here says about other things – an interesting idea, but also that ideas are two-a-penny, and not nearly enough on their own. He appears to have more time for the bicameral mind than I did, but it isn't entirely clear to me why. Personally, I tend to think that humans are narrative centred creatures – we make meaning from the scraps of evidence we find about us, and that is one of the key reasons why science’s radical doubt proves so important for us, because without it we will, quite literally, believe just about anything.
This is an interesting wee book - it is rather short and yet covers a lot of ground. Well worth taking a look, I think.
February 23, 2023
In my experience, working scientists often get history of science wrong - in this case, as it's arguably more history of philosophy, I can't say whether or not Carlo Rovelli is straying far from what's known to make his point, but what he has to say about the Greek philosopher Anaximander from the 6th century BC is fascinating.
All I really knew about Anaximander was that he had proposed an early cosmology, with a cylindrically shaped Earth and the light of the Sun and stars produced by fire contained in rings that had holes in to let the light out. This was interesting, but not necessarily hugely inspiring. By contrast, what Rovelli proposes is that Anaximander came up with a number of steps forward that were effectively foundational for the scientific method.
At first this seemed like hyperbole from someone championing a particular favourite, but by the end of the book I was convinced. What Rovelli attributes to Anaximander are the idea of a non-flat Earth floating in space - surrounded by the heavens, rather than a flat Earth with the heavens above; building on Thales' example as the first known explanation for physical processes without divine intervention; introducing the concept of natural law; and challenging his master's ideas rather than simply building on them.
The next step Rovelli takes is to try to understand why 6th century BC Greece was pretty well the only such starting point. He emphasises, for instance, that despite their impressive mathematics, astronomical observation and technological developments, Chinese philosophers and scientists never came up with the insight of a non-flat Earth floating in space, only switching to this viewpoint when they received information from missionaries in the seventeenth century. He suggests that it was the combination of having the first fully phonetic simple alphabet, the lack of dominant royalty and the independence of the city states that enabled this revolution in thinking in Miletus where Anaximander was based.
The rest of the book (about half of it) concentrates on what science is, the dangers of cultural relativism and understanding the world without gods. I found this a lot less interesting, partly because I'd seen most of it before, and partly because it is more a matter of paddling in the murky waters of philosophy of science rather than the more interesting (to me) origins of the history of science.
For the first half alone, though, this is a book well worth having. Rovelli has improved hugely since his early super-waffly titles - if you have an interest in where science came from, this is arguably his best so far.
All I really knew about Anaximander was that he had proposed an early cosmology, with a cylindrically shaped Earth and the light of the Sun and stars produced by fire contained in rings that had holes in to let the light out. This was interesting, but not necessarily hugely inspiring. By contrast, what Rovelli proposes is that Anaximander came up with a number of steps forward that were effectively foundational for the scientific method.
At first this seemed like hyperbole from someone championing a particular favourite, but by the end of the book I was convinced. What Rovelli attributes to Anaximander are the idea of a non-flat Earth floating in space - surrounded by the heavens, rather than a flat Earth with the heavens above; building on Thales' example as the first known explanation for physical processes without divine intervention; introducing the concept of natural law; and challenging his master's ideas rather than simply building on them.
The next step Rovelli takes is to try to understand why 6th century BC Greece was pretty well the only such starting point. He emphasises, for instance, that despite their impressive mathematics, astronomical observation and technological developments, Chinese philosophers and scientists never came up with the insight of a non-flat Earth floating in space, only switching to this viewpoint when they received information from missionaries in the seventeenth century. He suggests that it was the combination of having the first fully phonetic simple alphabet, the lack of dominant royalty and the independence of the city states that enabled this revolution in thinking in Miletus where Anaximander was based.
The rest of the book (about half of it) concentrates on what science is, the dangers of cultural relativism and understanding the world without gods. I found this a lot less interesting, partly because I'd seen most of it before, and partly because it is more a matter of paddling in the murky waters of philosophy of science rather than the more interesting (to me) origins of the history of science.
For the first half alone, though, this is a book well worth having. Rovelli has improved hugely since his early super-waffly titles - if you have an interest in where science came from, this is arguably his best so far.
October 29, 2023
"Preferisco l'incertezza."
I just want to say, very very quickly and hoping to encourage future readers of this book who are maybe on the fence trying to decide whether this would be a wise purchase or not, that the (luckily, few) reviews that complain about Rovelli going off on merely personal and unsupported speculations about Anamixader's thought show absolutely zero understanding of what the book is about.
For one thing, Rovelli says explicitly, in the very first chapter, that this won't be a historical reconstruction of Anaximander's thought, and that he is not aiming at historical-philosophical accuracy in his presentation of the Milesian philosopher - also in light of the fact that he is neither a philosopher nor an historian, and therefore this kind of work doesn't fall within his training and capabilities as a scholar. What he does, instead, is discuss what we know, or believe to be accurate, about Anaximander's thought (and his sources are quite rich in this respect), to discuss this information in terms of why and how this is relevant for understanding the development of the scientific enterprise, and of scientific, naturalistic rationality, as we understand these concepts today.
This very clear theoretical aim, which he clearly explains at the beginning of the book, also implies that even if we've got some relatively small number of facts about Anaximander wrong, that doesn't nullify the claim that, based on the written traces at our disposal, several defining characteristics of science and the scientific mindset (such as constitute Rovelli's focus in this book) were first conceived in the Greece of the VI century BCE. Even more importantly, Anaximander's ideas provide Rovelli with a compact historical and philosophical signpost, so that Rovelli can take the cue from this to talk, as a scientist, about science itself.
At one point in the book (I believe in the chapter about meteorology, but I'm not sure), Rovelli suggests that judging the results obtained by these ancient Greek philosophers-scientists based on whether they were right or wrong, or seeing their results as clairvoyant, is terribly short-sighted (in Italian, he uses the word "miope"). That's not the point at all. The point is the method: naturalism, curiosity, constructive and respectful (self-)criticism. These are the things that the book is about. So don't be miopi yourselves and actually listen to the books that you take the trouble to read.
I just want to say, very very quickly and hoping to encourage future readers of this book who are maybe on the fence trying to decide whether this would be a wise purchase or not, that the (luckily, few) reviews that complain about Rovelli going off on merely personal and unsupported speculations about Anamixader's thought show absolutely zero understanding of what the book is about.
For one thing, Rovelli says explicitly, in the very first chapter, that this won't be a historical reconstruction of Anaximander's thought, and that he is not aiming at historical-philosophical accuracy in his presentation of the Milesian philosopher - also in light of the fact that he is neither a philosopher nor an historian, and therefore this kind of work doesn't fall within his training and capabilities as a scholar. What he does, instead, is discuss what we know, or believe to be accurate, about Anaximander's thought (and his sources are quite rich in this respect), to discuss this information in terms of why and how this is relevant for understanding the development of the scientific enterprise, and of scientific, naturalistic rationality, as we understand these concepts today.
This very clear theoretical aim, which he clearly explains at the beginning of the book, also implies that even if we've got some relatively small number of facts about Anaximander wrong, that doesn't nullify the claim that, based on the written traces at our disposal, several defining characteristics of science and the scientific mindset (such as constitute Rovelli's focus in this book) were first conceived in the Greece of the VI century BCE. Even more importantly, Anaximander's ideas provide Rovelli with a compact historical and philosophical signpost, so that Rovelli can take the cue from this to talk, as a scientist, about science itself.
At one point in the book (I believe in the chapter about meteorology, but I'm not sure), Rovelli suggests that judging the results obtained by these ancient Greek philosophers-scientists based on whether they were right or wrong, or seeing their results as clairvoyant, is terribly short-sighted (in Italian, he uses the word "miope"). That's not the point at all. The point is the method: naturalism, curiosity, constructive and respectful (self-)criticism. These are the things that the book is about. So don't be miopi yourselves and actually listen to the books that you take the trouble to read.
November 3, 2024
Miletul a fost un oraș portuar prosper de pe coasta de vest a Asiei Mici.
Anaximadru a trăit în Milet, în secolul VI î.e.n. Este primul filosof care a propus o perspectivă naturalistă asupra lumii. Până la Anaximandru fenomenele naturale erau explicate întotdeauna în termeni mistici și religioși: ploia era adusă de Zeus, vântul de Eol, valurile sunt create de Poseidon.
Cu toate acestea, cercetarea legilor matematice subiacente fenomenelor naturale lipsește cu desăvârșire. Această idee va apărea mai târziu, în școala pitagoreică. Absentă este și ideea de experiment. Abia odată cu Galilei, adică două mii de ani mai târziu, putem vorbi despre experiment.
Recomand
Anaximadru a trăit în Milet, în secolul VI î.e.n. Este primul filosof care a propus o perspectivă naturalistă asupra lumii. Până la Anaximandru fenomenele naturale erau explicate întotdeauna în termeni mistici și religioși: ploia era adusă de Zeus, vântul de Eol, valurile sunt create de Poseidon.
Cu toate acestea, cercetarea legilor matematice subiacente fenomenelor naturale lipsește cu desăvârșire. Această idee va apărea mai târziu, în școala pitagoreică. Absentă este și ideea de experiment. Abia odată cu Galilei, adică două mii de ani mai târziu, putem vorbi despre experiment.
Recomand
November 25, 2023
Carlo Rovelli é o Carl Sagan do século XXI. Nenhum outro divulgador de ciência consegue fazer o que ambos fazem: relatar informação científica impregnada de emocionalidade. É preciso uma paixão imensa pelo que se faz e se quer expressar para chegar aqui, e do muito que tenho lido, Sagan e Rovelli são inigualáveis.
Ler o comentário completo em https://experiencianarrativa.wordpres...
Ler o comentário completo em https://experiencianarrativa.wordpres...
April 13, 2023
Carlo Rovelli has written a book about Anaximander who was born around 610BCE in Miletus in modern day Turkey and then goes on to discuss the nature of science and how progress is made by people reimagining the world on a continual basis.
Anaximander wrote a treatise in prose called On Nature. This book is now lost and only one fragment remains quoted by Simplicius of Cilicia in his commentary on Aristotle's Physics:
The effort to reconstruct Anaximander's ideas from indirect sources has been extensive, but does ultimately show that this man was the first to undertake scientific thinking as we know it today. Anaximander was always searching for knowledge to progress his understanding of the world.
This is quite profound because at the time people believed in gods and regarded them as the source of earthquakes, thunder, and lightning. Anaximander regarded these events as natural phenomena. He understood that rainwater is water from the sea, rivers, and lakes that has been evaporated because of the sun's heat. He also believed all animals originally came from the sea and understood that the planet Earth floated in space.
Anaximander wrote a treatise in prose called On Nature. This book is now lost and only one fragment remains quoted by Simplicius of Cilicia in his commentary on Aristotle's Physics:
The effort to reconstruct Anaximander's ideas from indirect sources has been extensive, but does ultimately show that this man was the first to undertake scientific thinking as we know it today. Anaximander was always searching for knowledge to progress his understanding of the world.
This is quite profound because at the time people believed in gods and regarded them as the source of earthquakes, thunder, and lightning. Anaximander regarded these events as natural phenomena. He understood that rainwater is water from the sea, rivers, and lakes that has been evaporated because of the sun's heat. He also believed all animals originally came from the sea and understood that the planet Earth floated in space.
October 1, 2020
La storia appassionante dei filosofi greci magistralmemte raccontata mette in evidenza la figura determinante di Anassimandro al quale non è stato dato il giusto riconoscimento riguardo la scoperta scientifica che riguarda il fatto che la terra non è piatta.
October 31, 2024
"Science is the human adventure of accepting uncertainty, eploring ways of thinking about the world, and being ready to overturn any and all certainties we have possessed to this point.. This is among the most beautiful of human adventures."
- Carlo Rovelli, Anaximander
I adore Carlo Rovelli. I've read most of his books. This one was great. It is a great book arguing that Anaximander was the Father of science. The first genius that attempted (often close, sometime wrong) to explain the natural world (the world, wind, earthquakes, etc) NOT through some god or gods act, but using natural explanations. I lived as a kid near Miletus in Turkey. The irony of traveling quite a bit as a kid was only fully appreciating places I've been fully years and years afterwards. Miletus was also, just a few years later, the home of Pythagorus. The 6th Century BCE was an intellectual banger in Western Turkey. Anyway, I adored the book. Not as poetic as some of his other books specifically on Physics, but the prose was fantastic (thanks also to the translator M. Rosenberg).
- Carlo Rovelli, Anaximander
I adore Carlo Rovelli. I've read most of his books. This one was great. It is a great book arguing that Anaximander was the Father of science. The first genius that attempted (often close, sometime wrong) to explain the natural world (the world, wind, earthquakes, etc) NOT through some god or gods act, but using natural explanations. I lived as a kid near Miletus in Turkey. The irony of traveling quite a bit as a kid was only fully appreciating places I've been fully years and years afterwards. Miletus was also, just a few years later, the home of Pythagorus. The 6th Century BCE was an intellectual banger in Western Turkey. Anyway, I adored the book. Not as poetic as some of his other books specifically on Physics, but the prose was fantastic (thanks also to the translator M. Rosenberg).
February 21, 2022
I'm really baffled by the horde of positive reviews of this book. The first few chapters are rather entertaining, introducing Anaximander and his historical context. From there onwards, it just goes into "I'm writing my blog" territory, introducing a series of opinionated diatribes on different positions and questions around the evolution of scientific thought. Even if you stay with the Anaximander part, there are serious flaws with what Rovelli writes. Not only does he ignore major research on the topic, but he goes on to fill in the gaps with his own imagination. I appreciate being creative and thought-provoking, however, building a whole story around it is stretching it a tad too far. Actually, the constant thought I had while reading it was that if Rovelli proceeded like this within his own field, his editors would reject the manuscript for lack of proof. It's ironic how scientists demand proof to sustain certain theories, but arbitrarily decided it doesn't apply to other fields. Also, I must confess that his dismissiveness and clear ignorance of Eastern Asian civilizations itches me too much.
Don't get me wrong, I appreciate and even agree with many of his arguments, but the extreme reductionism with which he approaches many of the topics of the book is problematic for me. And it's again ironic as one of his major points is that you must keep an open mind and be capable of adapting to different contexts.
Don't get me wrong, I appreciate and even agree with many of his arguments, but the extreme reductionism with which he approaches many of the topics of the book is problematic for me. And it's again ironic as one of his major points is that you must keep an open mind and be capable of adapting to different contexts.
March 15, 2025
I might be pessimistic, but the words I scribbled down after the last sentence of this book were "self-destruction". Otherwise pretty enjoyable (and possibly slightly idealised) treatise on the value of the scientific method as a means rather than an end, supposedly pioneered by the Pre-Socratic natural philosopher Anaximander.
October 25, 2014
Si fa sempre più chiaro che i buoni scienziati riescono a parlare della storia della cultura infinitamente meglio dei cosiddetti umanisti. La conoscono fin nei più reconditi accessi e ne sono dei grandi estimatori. Mi vengono in mente per esempio oltre a Carlo Revelli, parlando di italiani viventi, Edoardo Boncinelli e Piergiorgio Odifreddi. Attraverso le loro parole si intravvede una sorta di cartone dell'affresco rappresentato da noi, dalle nostre culture nella organicità delle loro diverse manifestazioni. Alcuni dei concetti chiave del libro sono in ordine alfabetico: antiscientismo, commensurabilita' delle teorie, empirismo, falsificazionismo, ignoranza, incertezza, meccanica quantistica, mistero, naturalismo, pensiero mitico religioso, pensiero scientifico, quantizzazione della gravità, razionalismo, relativismo, relativismo culturale, relatività generale, relatività ristretta, ribellione, riti, rivoluzione scientifica, traducibilità.
February 8, 2025
“Aγεωμέτρητος μηδεὶς εἰσίτω
No one ignorant of geometry can enter here.”
Rovelli’s books always seem to transcend their original premise.
They begin with a central thesis—this one being Anaximander’s contributions to the birth of science—work their way up toward far broader overarching concepts, and eventually interpret these concepts through thoroughly erudite exposition.
The beginning of this book is an interesting look into the origins of the hellenic world; the Mycenaean influence on developing Greek thought, the development of a rational, naturalistic worldview starting from Thales and the seven sages of Greece, to Anaximander and his revolutionary conceptions of the world, to Aristotle and Plato, the Ancient Eastern thinkers, Augustine, Aquinas, and beyond.
The middle is a compelling circumscription of historical context; the genesis of the empirical, naturalistic worldview, knowledge as the building block of further progressive paradigm shifts, and the deep anthropological roots of cultural context that bounds scientific progress to continual human development.
“Knowledge is born from a respectful but radical act of rebellion against what we currently think.”
The latter half is utterly fascinating. It goes over everything—the nature of thought, religion, consciousness, myth, ritual, cultural context, uncertainty, scientific paradigms—sublimating it into the overarching theme seamlessly, whilst referencing compelling sources, aided by original interpretive commentary by Rovelli himself.
Something about Rovelli's worldview resonates with me deeply. He is not only a humble, intelligent, and eloquent writer, but also a curious, rational, and interdisciplinary physicist.
This is another great book by Rovelli, and another I wouldn't mind reading again.
The ultimate conclusion of not only this book, but Rovelli’s entire oeuvre, is that regarding the world —nothing is certain.“Our knowledge, like the Earth, floats in nothingness.” Anything, anyone, or any order that asserts to ultimate truths cannot be trusted; for history shows that in Time, “truth” is temporary. Prior certainties are replaced by further knowledge. Yet in spite of the implicit nature of uncertainty, it is nothing to fear. We should embrace it, for it is the foundation of our continued quest for knowledge, and the building blocks of blossoming civilizations and cultures that tackle the great mysteries of existence.
No one ignorant of geometry can enter here.”
Rovelli’s books always seem to transcend their original premise.
They begin with a central thesis—this one being Anaximander’s contributions to the birth of science—work their way up toward far broader overarching concepts, and eventually interpret these concepts through thoroughly erudite exposition.
The beginning of this book is an interesting look into the origins of the hellenic world; the Mycenaean influence on developing Greek thought, the development of a rational, naturalistic worldview starting from Thales and the seven sages of Greece, to Anaximander and his revolutionary conceptions of the world, to Aristotle and Plato, the Ancient Eastern thinkers, Augustine, Aquinas, and beyond.
The middle is a compelling circumscription of historical context; the genesis of the empirical, naturalistic worldview, knowledge as the building block of further progressive paradigm shifts, and the deep anthropological roots of cultural context that bounds scientific progress to continual human development.
“Knowledge is born from a respectful but radical act of rebellion against what we currently think.”
The latter half is utterly fascinating. It goes over everything—the nature of thought, religion, consciousness, myth, ritual, cultural context, uncertainty, scientific paradigms—sublimating it into the overarching theme seamlessly, whilst referencing compelling sources, aided by original interpretive commentary by Rovelli himself.
Something about Rovelli's worldview resonates with me deeply. He is not only a humble, intelligent, and eloquent writer, but also a curious, rational, and interdisciplinary physicist.
This is another great book by Rovelli, and another I wouldn't mind reading again.
The ultimate conclusion of not only this book, but Rovelli’s entire oeuvre, is that regarding the world —nothing is certain.“Our knowledge, like the Earth, floats in nothingness.” Anything, anyone, or any order that asserts to ultimate truths cannot be trusted; for history shows that in Time, “truth” is temporary. Prior certainties are replaced by further knowledge. Yet in spite of the implicit nature of uncertainty, it is nothing to fear. We should embrace it, for it is the foundation of our continued quest for knowledge, and the building blocks of blossoming civilizations and cultures that tackle the great mysteries of existence.
February 3, 2024
Carlo Rovelli consideră că Anaximandru din Milet a avut un rol central în nașterea gândirii științifice, căci a fost primul care a încercat să explice lumea fără a face recurs la supranatural și zei, ci oferind explicații naturaliste ale lumii.
Mi-a plăcut că autorul a început prin a-l încadra pe filosof în timp și spațiu, prezentând modul cum arăta lumea în secolul șase î.e.n și ce fel de civilizații existau în acel moment. Astfel a putut oferi sugestii referitoare la motivul pentru care Anaximandru a putut fi critic legat de status quo-ul explicațiilor lumii, precum faptul că Ionia se afla într-o perioadă prosperă, democrată, în care educația era accesibilă. De asemenea, a putut sublinia diferența calitativă între modurile de gândire care îl preced și cea pe care a inițiat-o Anaximandru.
Am savurat cartea, căci Rovelli prezintă într-un mod pasionat două dintre interesele mele: știința și filosofia. Mi-a plăcut și poziția sa față de controversa știință-religie, căci a susținut că acestea vor fi mereu în conflict, datorită faptului că religia se bazează pe acceptarea unor adevăruri care nu pot fi niciodată contestate, pe când gândirea științifică presupune a pune la îndoială orice premisă care devine insuficientă și a accepta noi dovezi și idei. În plus, nu pot decât să fiu de acord cu fervoarea sa de a îmbrățișa incertitudinea, care nu înseamnă a relativiza totul, ci a accepta și aprecia cunoașterea pe care o avem până acum, dar a fi conștienți că ea va putea fi infirmată în orice moment.
Mi-a plăcut că autorul a început prin a-l încadra pe filosof în timp și spațiu, prezentând modul cum arăta lumea în secolul șase î.e.n și ce fel de civilizații existau în acel moment. Astfel a putut oferi sugestii referitoare la motivul pentru care Anaximandru a putut fi critic legat de status quo-ul explicațiilor lumii, precum faptul că Ionia se afla într-o perioadă prosperă, democrată, în care educația era accesibilă. De asemenea, a putut sublinia diferența calitativă între modurile de gândire care îl preced și cea pe care a inițiat-o Anaximandru.
Am savurat cartea, căci Rovelli prezintă într-un mod pasionat două dintre interesele mele: știința și filosofia. Mi-a plăcut și poziția sa față de controversa știință-religie, căci a susținut că acestea vor fi mereu în conflict, datorită faptului că religia se bazează pe acceptarea unor adevăruri care nu pot fi niciodată contestate, pe când gândirea științifică presupune a pune la îndoială orice premisă care devine insuficientă și a accepta noi dovezi și idei. În plus, nu pot decât să fiu de acord cu fervoarea sa de a îmbrățișa incertitudinea, care nu înseamnă a relativiza totul, ci a accepta și aprecia cunoașterea pe care o avem până acum, dar a fi conștienți că ea va putea fi infirmată în orice moment.
August 26, 2025
A surprisingly provocative and inspiring book about the birth of scientific thinking 2600 years ago and its trajectory to our current knowledge about “reality”.
Offered some really nice quotable wisdom as well, painting science as critical rebel and passionate embrace of uncertainty, just a few highlights here:
“Knowledge is born from a respectful but radical act of rebellion against what we currently think.”
“The nature of scientific thought is critical and rebellious. It does not suffer a priori conclusions, reverence, or untouchable truths.”
“[Science’s] strength lies not in the certainties it reaches but in a radical awareness of the vastness of our ignorance.”
“Given our puny knowledge, we can't not accept living in the midst of mystery.”
Offered some really nice quotable wisdom as well, painting science as critical rebel and passionate embrace of uncertainty, just a few highlights here:
“Knowledge is born from a respectful but radical act of rebellion against what we currently think.”
“The nature of scientific thought is critical and rebellious. It does not suffer a priori conclusions, reverence, or untouchable truths.”
“[Science’s] strength lies not in the certainties it reaches but in a radical awareness of the vastness of our ignorance.”
“Given our puny knowledge, we can't not accept living in the midst of mystery.”
March 3, 2017
I'm not really sure what I was expecting when I ordered this book. I knew that Anaximander has few surviving writings (all of which are either quotes from more recent authors or a couple phrases here or there). What I got was an interesting exploration of science by a scientist as well as an informed history of Anaximander.
I primarily was expecting a good explanation of the history of Anaximander, and Rovelli does a great job of explaining what we know, and also what he thinks are the important scientific takeaways. His history of Anaximander is the facts as historians know it along with the cultural milieu of ancient Greece. As Rovelli explains, it doesn't really matter if Anaximander exists for some of these takeaways, so long as the idea originated from people (or a person) of the era. The idea of the Earth floating in space, of naturalistic accounts of nature (no supernatural explanations), and of accepting uncertainty are the breakthroughs inherent in Anaximander's work, and the groundwork for much of modern science.
For history, I found that Rovelli did a very good and thorough job of explaining things. I was astonished to learn that the Chinese thought the Earth was flat until Jesuit missionaries in the late 1500s came, and I think it an interesting example of a scientific idea being a world changer (in a literal sense).
I have a few quibbles on the history, though. First, Anaximander's theory of the origin of humankind doesn't seem to imply an evolution of humans from fish-like creatures. When I read the English translation on Wikipedia, for example, it seems like humans (in their current form) were in the fishes and thrown on land when land was made available (also The Dream of Reason by Gottlieb says the same thing about Anaximander not having thought of evolution even in the proto-form of animals changing into other animals). Second, Hypatia and the state of religion vs. science after the Fall of Rome is mentioned in a way that I think is a bit unfair. Hypatia was murdered, but it seems more for being associated with a rival bishop than for her scientific achievements, so it's not really a science vs religion issue, and while I agree that science wasn't achieving great advances during the Middle Ages, it wasn't as stark as it is sometime made out (see the Oxford calculators for example).
For the science and "religion" essays, I found them interesting and thought provoking. Rovelli explores what science is, and he talks about the philosophy of science well. He seems well-acquainted with the various theories that have been put forth, and does not favor any one side too strongly (I think a nice summary of the ideas, and his own thoughtful definition, if one could call it that). He explores what drives us to look for explanations, what that might mean, and ends reinforcing that accepting uncertainty is a crucial part of humanity's improvement of the past millenia.
This is an interesting read, esp. if you have an interest in ancient science and philosophy of science. I think it's worth a read if you have such interests.
I primarily was expecting a good explanation of the history of Anaximander, and Rovelli does a great job of explaining what we know, and also what he thinks are the important scientific takeaways. His history of Anaximander is the facts as historians know it along with the cultural milieu of ancient Greece. As Rovelli explains, it doesn't really matter if Anaximander exists for some of these takeaways, so long as the idea originated from people (or a person) of the era. The idea of the Earth floating in space, of naturalistic accounts of nature (no supernatural explanations), and of accepting uncertainty are the breakthroughs inherent in Anaximander's work, and the groundwork for much of modern science.
For history, I found that Rovelli did a very good and thorough job of explaining things. I was astonished to learn that the Chinese thought the Earth was flat until Jesuit missionaries in the late 1500s came, and I think it an interesting example of a scientific idea being a world changer (in a literal sense).
I have a few quibbles on the history, though. First, Anaximander's theory of the origin of humankind doesn't seem to imply an evolution of humans from fish-like creatures. When I read the English translation on Wikipedia, for example, it seems like humans (in their current form) were in the fishes and thrown on land when land was made available (also The Dream of Reason by Gottlieb says the same thing about Anaximander not having thought of evolution even in the proto-form of animals changing into other animals). Second, Hypatia and the state of religion vs. science after the Fall of Rome is mentioned in a way that I think is a bit unfair. Hypatia was murdered, but it seems more for being associated with a rival bishop than for her scientific achievements, so it's not really a science vs religion issue, and while I agree that science wasn't achieving great advances during the Middle Ages, it wasn't as stark as it is sometime made out (see the Oxford calculators for example).
For the science and "religion" essays, I found them interesting and thought provoking. Rovelli explores what science is, and he talks about the philosophy of science well. He seems well-acquainted with the various theories that have been put forth, and does not favor any one side too strongly (I think a nice summary of the ideas, and his own thoughtful definition, if one could call it that). He explores what drives us to look for explanations, what that might mean, and ends reinforcing that accepting uncertainty is a crucial part of humanity's improvement of the past millenia.
This is an interesting read, esp. if you have an interest in ancient science and philosophy of science. I think it's worth a read if you have such interests.
March 11, 2023
I really disliked this book. It is extremely repetitive and he ranges into areas for which he has no expertise, notably intellectual history, the origin of consciousness and the origins of religion.
Rovelli believes that science began with Anaximander, not Thales. It has long been thought that philosophy and science began with Thales. After all, Thales looked for a naturalistic ground for explanations of the way things worked, not the gods. That is on him. But, according to Rovelli, Anaximander gets the title because he disagreed with Thales. It is the disagreement that matters.
But that is explained by the fact that Rovelli has an odd definition of scientific thinking which he claims “is a continuous quest for novel ways of conceptualizing the world.” That sounds to me like a number of German idealists, notably Leibniz, Kant, Hegel and Schopenhauer.
His favorite philosophers of science are Kuhn, Popper and Feyerabend. He sees science as subversive. He is a relativist. He never mentions it but follows Popper’s ‘critical rationalism.’
He condemns Western culture for its imperialism, religious dogmatism-especially the Catholic Church and the religious right-and its destruction of the planet through the Industrial Revolution. This is a strange position to take as Feyerabend’s position is “anything goes.” And that does include religion.
He sees us in the West as selfish and encourages us to read ancient Hindu texts.
Near the end he says, “I prefer the path of uncertainty.” And yet, he takes some very strong anti-western positions in this book. Hmm.
Rovelli believes that science began with Anaximander, not Thales. It has long been thought that philosophy and science began with Thales. After all, Thales looked for a naturalistic ground for explanations of the way things worked, not the gods. That is on him. But, according to Rovelli, Anaximander gets the title because he disagreed with Thales. It is the disagreement that matters.
But that is explained by the fact that Rovelli has an odd definition of scientific thinking which he claims “is a continuous quest for novel ways of conceptualizing the world.” That sounds to me like a number of German idealists, notably Leibniz, Kant, Hegel and Schopenhauer.
His favorite philosophers of science are Kuhn, Popper and Feyerabend. He sees science as subversive. He is a relativist. He never mentions it but follows Popper’s ‘critical rationalism.’
He condemns Western culture for its imperialism, religious dogmatism-especially the Catholic Church and the religious right-and its destruction of the planet through the Industrial Revolution. This is a strange position to take as Feyerabend’s position is “anything goes.” And that does include religion.
He sees us in the West as selfish and encourages us to read ancient Hindu texts.
Near the end he says, “I prefer the path of uncertainty.” And yet, he takes some very strong anti-western positions in this book. Hmm.
November 5, 2013
Come off it Carlo, who do you think you're kidding?
December 9, 2016
Çok etkilendim. Okumanızı şiddetle tavsiye ederim.
March 7, 2023
4.5 stars.
June 4, 2017
Una breve opera divulgativa di Carlo Rovelli, il fisico autore del best-seller "Sette brevi lezioni di fisica".
Questo libro è precedente, del 2012.
Si parte da quello che l'autore considera il primo scienziato ante-litteram, Anassimandro, per allargarsi ad una riflessione più ampia sul ruolo della scienza e del pensiero critico.
Anassimandro è uno dei filosofi pre-socratici, che spesso scivola anonimo tra le prime lezioni di filosofia al liceo. Ma in questo libro (e ricordo un simile accenno nei documentari di Carl Sagan) lo si eleva a prima incarnazione storica dello spirito "scientifico", non essendosi accontentato nelle sue spiegazioni dei fenomeni naturali di tirare in ballo gli dei, ma avendo elaborato una proposta del tutto fisica.
Ancora una volta Rovelli conferma il suo grande talento di divulgatore, non tanto di argomenti scientifici concreti, in questo caso, quanto di storia del pensiero.
Certo non è un trattato enciclopedico. Il taglio è analogo a quello di "Sette brevi lezioni di fisica": brevi capitoli, neanche una parola di troppo, abbondanti riferimenti a voci le più diverse (si spazia dalla Grecia classica, a Lucrezio, ad autori cristiani, a sociologi come Durkheim).
Ma non si spaventi il lettore digiuno di studi umanistici (come, per dire, me): la lettura scorre sempre facile, il dibattito non si fa mai sterilmente accademico, animato com'è dalla prosa energica dell'autore, e dal suo ottimismo di fondo.
Rovelli infatti non si accontenta del ruolo "tecnico" della scienza, di fare previsioni affidabili. Questo è, sì, il metodo per validarne le teorie, ma a sottendere queste c'è, necessariamente e soprattutto, un modo di vedere, raccontare, costruire il mondo. Che un quanto tale ha un'influenza più ampia.
E quindi, ad esempio, richiamando le riflessioni di Kuhn sulle "rivoluzioni scientifiche", non è preciso parlare di incommensurabilità tra paradigmi scientifici successivi: due teorie si parlano, eccome; nel contesto in cui nascono, nei risultati verificabili che implicano. E' solo, appunto, a questo livello più profondo di modo di vedere il mondo che esse differiscono. Il libro fa proprio, come Kuhn, l'esempio di Copernico e Tolomeo: i loro due trattati si assomigliano nella struttura, "si parlano"; si dice, con una bellissima immagine, "si cercano come due innamorati".
Ecco, in questo senso questo saggio è sempre temperato da una sensibilità umanistica, con vette che giungono quasi alla poesia.
Una parte significativa è dedicata alla polemica verso l'irrazionalismo. A volte velata, sempre rispettosa e prodiga di argomenti. E con una fiducia immutate nelle capacità umane di conoscere, sempre di più. Non tutto, si badi bene: questa sciocca arroganza è del tutto assente.
Per usare le parole dell'autore: "Il mondo è terribilmente più complicato delle immagini che ce ne facciamo [...]. Siamo obbligati a scegliere se chiuderci in certezze vuote oppure accettare questa incertezza profonda [...]. Preferisco l'incertezza. Mi sembra [...] più degna, più onesta, più seria, più bella."
Questo libro è precedente, del 2012.
Si parte da quello che l'autore considera il primo scienziato ante-litteram, Anassimandro, per allargarsi ad una riflessione più ampia sul ruolo della scienza e del pensiero critico.
Anassimandro è uno dei filosofi pre-socratici, che spesso scivola anonimo tra le prime lezioni di filosofia al liceo. Ma in questo libro (e ricordo un simile accenno nei documentari di Carl Sagan) lo si eleva a prima incarnazione storica dello spirito "scientifico", non essendosi accontentato nelle sue spiegazioni dei fenomeni naturali di tirare in ballo gli dei, ma avendo elaborato una proposta del tutto fisica.
Ancora una volta Rovelli conferma il suo grande talento di divulgatore, non tanto di argomenti scientifici concreti, in questo caso, quanto di storia del pensiero.
Certo non è un trattato enciclopedico. Il taglio è analogo a quello di "Sette brevi lezioni di fisica": brevi capitoli, neanche una parola di troppo, abbondanti riferimenti a voci le più diverse (si spazia dalla Grecia classica, a Lucrezio, ad autori cristiani, a sociologi come Durkheim).
Ma non si spaventi il lettore digiuno di studi umanistici (come, per dire, me): la lettura scorre sempre facile, il dibattito non si fa mai sterilmente accademico, animato com'è dalla prosa energica dell'autore, e dal suo ottimismo di fondo.
Rovelli infatti non si accontenta del ruolo "tecnico" della scienza, di fare previsioni affidabili. Questo è, sì, il metodo per validarne le teorie, ma a sottendere queste c'è, necessariamente e soprattutto, un modo di vedere, raccontare, costruire il mondo. Che un quanto tale ha un'influenza più ampia.
E quindi, ad esempio, richiamando le riflessioni di Kuhn sulle "rivoluzioni scientifiche", non è preciso parlare di incommensurabilità tra paradigmi scientifici successivi: due teorie si parlano, eccome; nel contesto in cui nascono, nei risultati verificabili che implicano. E' solo, appunto, a questo livello più profondo di modo di vedere il mondo che esse differiscono. Il libro fa proprio, come Kuhn, l'esempio di Copernico e Tolomeo: i loro due trattati si assomigliano nella struttura, "si parlano"; si dice, con una bellissima immagine, "si cercano come due innamorati".
Ecco, in questo senso questo saggio è sempre temperato da una sensibilità umanistica, con vette che giungono quasi alla poesia.
Una parte significativa è dedicata alla polemica verso l'irrazionalismo. A volte velata, sempre rispettosa e prodiga di argomenti. E con una fiducia immutate nelle capacità umane di conoscere, sempre di più. Non tutto, si badi bene: questa sciocca arroganza è del tutto assente.
Per usare le parole dell'autore: "Il mondo è terribilmente più complicato delle immagini che ce ne facciamo [...]. Siamo obbligati a scegliere se chiuderci in certezze vuote oppure accettare questa incertezza profonda [...]. Preferisco l'incertezza. Mi sembra [...] più degna, più onesta, più seria, più bella."
February 26, 2018
Dopo Sette brevi lezioni di Fisica e L'ordine del tempo, anche questo libro merita la mia ammirazione per la capacità di questo intellettuale di riuscire così bene a divulgare problematiche complesse.
Non c'è una semplificazione dei concetti, che rimangono impegnativi, ma è l'uso della lingua comune declinata su ambiti specifici, ma non settoriali ed esclusivi, a rendere la lettura fluida e comprensibile.
Il contenuto riguarda soprattutto la filosofia della scienza, delle sue finalità primarie e dei suoi obiettivi, del rapporto e conflitto con le religioni da cui, proprio Anassimandro, iniziò a prendere le distanze; figura questa sottovalutata, ma rivoluzionaria per l'epoca in cui tutti i fenomeni naturali erano ricondotti alla volontà degli dei.
Nel dettaglio, le intuizioni del filosofo greco sono ben sviluppate nei capitoli iniziali, ma i concetti analizzati, al di là dell'impossibilità di portare prove per mancanza delle necessarie conoscenze e tecnologie, rimangono sorprendentemente attuali, più per metodo (o coraggio) che per contenuto.
Nella seconda parte, l'autore fa un'analisi antropologica della nascita e sviluppo delle relazioni tra gli umani e le divinità, intese come costrutti cognitivi necessari alla coesione sociale, così come li descrive ampiamente Harari nei suoi testi.
E' una lettura istruttiva e gradevole, adatta anche agli adolescenti.
La Terra è una sfera che galleggia nel vuoto
Non c'è una semplificazione dei concetti, che rimangono impegnativi, ma è l'uso della lingua comune declinata su ambiti specifici, ma non settoriali ed esclusivi, a rendere la lettura fluida e comprensibile.
Il contenuto riguarda soprattutto la filosofia della scienza, delle sue finalità primarie e dei suoi obiettivi, del rapporto e conflitto con le religioni da cui, proprio Anassimandro, iniziò a prendere le distanze; figura questa sottovalutata, ma rivoluzionaria per l'epoca in cui tutti i fenomeni naturali erano ricondotti alla volontà degli dei.
Nel dettaglio, le intuizioni del filosofo greco sono ben sviluppate nei capitoli iniziali, ma i concetti analizzati, al di là dell'impossibilità di portare prove per mancanza delle necessarie conoscenze e tecnologie, rimangono sorprendentemente attuali, più per metodo (o coraggio) che per contenuto.
Nella seconda parte, l'autore fa un'analisi antropologica della nascita e sviluppo delle relazioni tra gli umani e le divinità, intese come costrutti cognitivi necessari alla coesione sociale, così come li descrive ampiamente Harari nei suoi testi.
E' una lettura istruttiva e gradevole, adatta anche agli adolescenti.
La Terra è una sfera che galleggia nel vuoto
October 29, 2022
İyonya filozoflarından, Thales’le birlikte ve belki de ondan daha kapsamlı bir epistemoloji ortaya koyan Anaksimandros’a övgü niteliğinde bir eser. Yazar, söz konusu filozofun, alabildiğine mistik-dini bir toplum ve çağda, coğrafya, kozmoloji, astronomi, biyoloji ve genel anlamda doğa araştırmalarına ilişkin düşünsel sıçrama yaratan nitelikte yaklaşımlarının ve bu yaklaşımın modern bilimin de düşünce tarzı ile olan yakın, dolaysız etkileşiminden bahsediyor. Bu anlamda kitap, Thales’in tilmizine bir saygı duruşu niteliğinde.
Anaksimandros’un çağının mitos’larından arınmış ve ancak çok sonra anlaşılabilecek saptamalarını ve daha da önemlisi insanlığın gelişiminde rol oynayan düşünce tarihinde nasıl bir devrim yarattığı üzerinde durulmuş.
Rovelli, Richard Dawkins kadar keskin bir dille tanrı karşıtlığına soyunmasa da, bilimin, bilimsel düşüncenin gelişiminin ve onun kendine içkin yanlışlanabilirlik doğasının, insanlığın yolculuğunda, kitabında gösterdiği şekilde irrasyonel olduğu birçok kez ispatlanan öğretilerden daha değerli, maceracı ve doğru bir yol olduğunu modern bilim insanı bakış açısıyla daha naif bir dille anlatıyor. Kitapta çok öne çıkmasa da, dini saiklerin etkisi altında kalmadan da bilimin gayet tabii bir yoldan ilerleyebileceği gibi bir orta yolu bulma çabası yada gayesi de mevcut. Bu ılımlı ve pozitif yaklaşımları ile, ama bilimsel düşünceye olan, olabilecek en rasyonel tapınmadan da taviz vermeden ele aldığı konularla okunmaya değer bir yazar.
Anaksimandros’un çağının mitos’larından arınmış ve ancak çok sonra anlaşılabilecek saptamalarını ve daha da önemlisi insanlığın gelişiminde rol oynayan düşünce tarihinde nasıl bir devrim yarattığı üzerinde durulmuş.
Rovelli, Richard Dawkins kadar keskin bir dille tanrı karşıtlığına soyunmasa da, bilimin, bilimsel düşüncenin gelişiminin ve onun kendine içkin yanlışlanabilirlik doğasının, insanlığın yolculuğunda, kitabında gösterdiği şekilde irrasyonel olduğu birçok kez ispatlanan öğretilerden daha değerli, maceracı ve doğru bir yol olduğunu modern bilim insanı bakış açısıyla daha naif bir dille anlatıyor. Kitapta çok öne çıkmasa da, dini saiklerin etkisi altında kalmadan da bilimin gayet tabii bir yoldan ilerleyebileceği gibi bir orta yolu bulma çabası yada gayesi de mevcut. Bu ılımlı ve pozitif yaklaşımları ile, ama bilimsel düşünceye olan, olabilecek en rasyonel tapınmadan da taviz vermeden ele aldığı konularla okunmaya değer bir yazar.
February 6, 2018
Tra tutte le rivoluzioni scientifiche che hanno caratterizzato la storia, il noto fisico teorico ci illumina la figura del filosofo pre-socratico Anassimandro, a sua detta il primo vero scienzato. Le sue intuizioni cosmologiche e non (soprattutto la visione della terra come un masso sferico sospeso nel vuoto e il ciclo dell'acqua), per quanto oggi risultino elementari, erano d'avanguardia per l'epoca e addirittura per il millennio a venire, soprattutto perché non si basavano su convinzioni mistiche ma un primo tentativo razionale di osservazione. Su questo motivo si sviluppano poi molte delle riflessioni presenti, sulla necessità di slegare la ricerca di qualcosa che motivi i fenomeni piuttosto che osservarli e descriverli, intendere ogni teoria scientifica come non cristallinizzata e quindi "falsificabile", oltre alle posizioni aperte, citando vari esempi storici e moderni, contro l'assolutismo oscurantista e più di tutto, il relativismo culturale che oggi impera. Il tutto risulta una profonda quanto "semplice" introduzione epistemologica.
November 21, 2012
A slim but interesting volume on the history of scientific thinking. Rovelli awards Anaximander the laurels of first scientist not because of a body of work, but because he was among the first thinkers to try and understand the world without recourse to gods.
Rovelli states, "Contrary to a common image, scientific thinking is never established: it is constantly subversive, visionary, and evolutionary. The aspect of science that I seek to illuminate in this book is its critical and rebellious ability to re-conceive the world time and again."
Although many people equate science with certainty, Rovelli elegantly writes that this is not the case, and indeed that scientific inquiry is all about calling shared certainties into question.
A lovely little book that I thoroughly enjoyed.
Rovelli states, "Contrary to a common image, scientific thinking is never established: it is constantly subversive, visionary, and evolutionary. The aspect of science that I seek to illuminate in this book is its critical and rebellious ability to re-conceive the world time and again."
Although many people equate science with certainty, Rovelli elegantly writes that this is not the case, and indeed that scientific inquiry is all about calling shared certainties into question.
A lovely little book that I thoroughly enjoyed.
May 8, 2020
Rovelli consistently amazes me with his beautiful prose, thorough investigation of his topic and meaningful conclusions. Anaximander lived in about 600 BCE, in Greece but in today's Turkey. He is sometimes called the first scientist but, perhaps more accurately the one who first identified the earth as floating in space with air above and below. There is little known about Anaximander but Rovelli manages to use this sparce information to hang a history of scientific thinking. Finally, Rovelli extracts Anaximander's rejection of religion to open a discussion of religion throughout history, in today's world, and not consistent with scientific requirement of accepting "the radical uncertainty of our knowledge." -- all in 182 pages.
September 18, 2023
Part historical account of the beginnings of scientific thought and part essay in defence of the scientific method, Rovelli clearly illustrates the dangers of anti-intellectualism and the misunderstanding of the scientific process as a form of religion that should adhere to dogma, taking what we think we know and refusing to change our minds about it when new evidence comes to light.
Rovelli has a conversational, engaging style, and even if you don't usually read non-fiction, you're likely to find yourself absorbed in his prose.
Rovelli has a conversational, engaging style, and even if you don't usually read non-fiction, you're likely to find yourself absorbed in his prose.
May 27, 2025
One of those slightly annoying 5 star in parts books, but 3 stars in others. At its best original and compelling, but some less original bits.
Let’s start with the good.
Rovelli writes well and has picked on a relatively obscure pre-Socratic philosopher, Anaximander. I know him as I’ve studied the pre-Socratics, but Rovelli - a significant scientist in his own right - shows, convincingly, how philosophers have underestimated the importance of Anaximander. Rovelli sees Anaximander as the founder really of the scientific revolution. An innovator of critical thinking.
In doing this Rovelli writes a compelling philosophy of science. The introduction is an excellent summary of the philosophy, role of and culture of science - better than many philosophers’ attempts. At least better as a very concise summary.
So that’s the 5 stars - and this is done in roughly the first half of the book, up to and including chapter 6.
After this he broadens out in a way that is partially and not completely related to the first half of the book. This is all good, smart and well written too, but it felt to me like a different book. This is especially true of chapters 9 and 10 on truth, cultural relativism and religion. He writes some interesting stuff, but he is not as much as expert here and whilst it’s all smart and well referenced I felt it was not as good as the rest and actually detracted from the book’s overall impact. 3 stars for this bit - so averages out at 4.
Still a very worthy read for the first half alone.
Let’s start with the good.
Rovelli writes well and has picked on a relatively obscure pre-Socratic philosopher, Anaximander. I know him as I’ve studied the pre-Socratics, but Rovelli - a significant scientist in his own right - shows, convincingly, how philosophers have underestimated the importance of Anaximander. Rovelli sees Anaximander as the founder really of the scientific revolution. An innovator of critical thinking.
In doing this Rovelli writes a compelling philosophy of science. The introduction is an excellent summary of the philosophy, role of and culture of science - better than many philosophers’ attempts. At least better as a very concise summary.
So that’s the 5 stars - and this is done in roughly the first half of the book, up to and including chapter 6.
After this he broadens out in a way that is partially and not completely related to the first half of the book. This is all good, smart and well written too, but it felt to me like a different book. This is especially true of chapters 9 and 10 on truth, cultural relativism and religion. He writes some interesting stuff, but he is not as much as expert here and whilst it’s all smart and well referenced I felt it was not as good as the rest and actually detracted from the book’s overall impact. 3 stars for this bit - so averages out at 4.
Still a very worthy read for the first half alone.
March 19, 2025
Ein spannender, wenn doch kurzweiliger Einblick in die grundlegenden Fragestellungen, die die Entstehung der modernen Wissenschaft vor Jahrtausenden möglich gemacht haben.
Besonders hervorzuheben ist der Aspekt, dass wir unsere aktuelle Weltsicht/Wissensstand für selbstverständlich nehmen und es kaum vorstellbar ist, dass die Funktionsweise der Welt/Natur nicht immer so betrachtet wurde.
Zudem konnte die Weiterentwicklung der gesamten Menschheit nur aufgrund eines regen Austauschs zwischen verschiedenen Kulturen stattfinden, die sich gegenseitig bereichern und befruchten konnten, ein Punkt, den wir menscheitsgeschichtlich leider ständig zu vergessen scheinen.
Besonders hervorzuheben ist der Aspekt, dass wir unsere aktuelle Weltsicht/Wissensstand für selbstverständlich nehmen und es kaum vorstellbar ist, dass die Funktionsweise der Welt/Natur nicht immer so betrachtet wurde.
Zudem konnte die Weiterentwicklung der gesamten Menschheit nur aufgrund eines regen Austauschs zwischen verschiedenen Kulturen stattfinden, die sich gegenseitig bereichern und befruchten konnten, ein Punkt, den wir menscheitsgeschichtlich leider ständig zu vergessen scheinen.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 290 reviews