What do you think?
Rate this book
Revolution in Science
Only a scholar as rich in learning as I. Bernard Cohen could do justice to a theme so subtle and yet so grand. Spanning five centuries and virtually all of scientific endeavor, "Revolution in Science" traces the nuances that differentiate both scientific revolutions and human perceptions of them, weaving threads of detail from physics, mathematics, behaviorism, Freud, atomic physics, and even plate tectonics and molecular biology, into the larger fabric of intellectual history.
How did "revolution," a term from the physical sciences, meaning a turning again and implying permanence and recurrence--the cyclical succession of the seasons, the 'revolutions' of the planets in their orbits--become transformed into an expression for radical change in political and socioeconomic affairs, then become appropriated once again to the sciences?
How have political revolutions--French, American, Bolshevik--and such intellectual forces as Darwinism further modified the concept, from revolution in science as a dramatic break with the past to the idea that science progresses by the slow accumulation of knowledge? And what does each transformation in each historical period tell us about the deep conceptual changes in our image of the scientist and scientific activity?
Cohen's exploration seeks to uncover nothing less than the nature of all scientific revolutions, the stages by which they occur, their time scale, specific criteria for determining whether or not there has been a revolution, and the creative factors in producing a revolutionary new idea. His book is a probing analysis of the history of an idea and one of the most impressive surveys of the history of science ever undertaken.
How did "revolution," a term from the physical sciences, meaning a turning again and implying permanence and recurrence--the cyclical succession of the seasons, the 'revolutions' of the planets in their orbits--become transformed into an expression for radical change in political and socioeconomic affairs, then become appropriated once again to the sciences?
How have political revolutions--French, American, Bolshevik--and such intellectual forces as Darwinism further modified the concept, from revolution in science as a dramatic break with the past to the idea that science progresses by the slow accumulation of knowledge? And what does each transformation in each historical period tell us about the deep conceptual changes in our image of the scientist and scientific activity?
Cohen's exploration seeks to uncover nothing less than the nature of all scientific revolutions, the stages by which they occur, their time scale, specific criteria for determining whether or not there has been a revolution, and the creative factors in producing a revolutionary new idea. His book is a probing analysis of the history of an idea and one of the most impressive surveys of the history of science ever undertaken.
734 pages, Paperback
First published March 15, 1987
5 people are currently reading
126 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 6 of 6 reviews
July 31, 2011
Cohen leaves no stone unturned in his etymological investigation of the word "revolution", from its first usage implying a cyclical return, to that implying a major upheaval. The author then tries to establish the criteria for a true "revolution", and then applies that criteria to the major scientific discoveries of the past five or six centuries. Of particular interest was his examination of the writings of the great scientists and contemporaries as those discoveries came to light. This book came to my reading list from the bibliography of James Gleick's book Genius: The life and science of Richard Feynman.
August 16, 2014
REVOLUTION IN SCIENCE
BY
I. BERNARD COHEN
Revolution in science is a vast ideological concept that historians use to place a structure on the evolution of scientif¬ic progress. In I. Bernard Cohen's book Revolution in Science he writes a historic analysis of the semantic transformation of this idea from the 17th to the 20th centuries. This idea is also examined in the political realm as the background to the scien¬tific revolutions. By providing criteria such as tests and stages of revolutions, Cohen takes a Kuhnian stance and defends his view that revolutions are a part of the history of science.
The book is structured with six sections and a conclusion. The first two sections are introductory and provide a historical background of revolution by giving an overview of the periods in which he contends revolutions occurred. Each of the final four sections discusses a century, beginning with the 17th and ending with the 20th. Cohen applies his criterion tests to various scientific concepts and practitioners in an attempt to determine what was and what was not a revolution. The conclusion discusses the idea of conversion as one common theme of all revolutions.
The variety of material that is contained in this book and its successful development into one solid theme results in a highly informative and exhaustive study. The views of philoso¬phers, historians, politicians, and scientists give a complete testimony from all perspectives. I was glad to see a discussion of Freud and psycholanalysis since this was the first inclusion of psychology that I have seen in the history of science. The history of science is not just physics, mathematics, biology, and chemistry. It also encompasses topics such as plate tectonics and behaviorism. Cohen masterly recognizes a variety of these sub¬jects and successfully incorporates them into his study.
One area which I feel Cohen should have included is the germ theory of disease. Pasteur, his bacteriological co-founder Koch, and Lister with his application of the theory to surgery, laid the foundations for modern medicine. In considering whether this passes Cohen's tests and stages, I feel that it does and is thus a revolution. Although Cohen could not include everything that exists within the scientific world, the germ theory seems much more important than some of the minor revolutions that he discusses.
I agree with Cohen that neither Copernicus nor Kepler achieved a full scientific revolution. The fact that the Coperni¬can system was not any more accurate or any less complicated than Ptolemy's was a good example of what he did not accomplish. By creating a revolution on paper, Copernicus started the journey that Galileo would eventually finish. I think that the classifi¬cation of Kepler as also only achieving a revolution on paper is interesting and is sufficiently supported because he did not influence or alter the practitioners of astronomy until 1687.
My own opinion is that we are in the midst of one continuous revolution. In the 17th century, it was relatively easy to select Newton as a revolutionary figure; however, in the 20th century, revolutions are everywhere from computers to genetic engineering. Cohen aptly names our period "The Age of Revolutions." For the coming 21st century, a new standard of what constitutes a revolu¬tionary concept will need to be defined. By downgrading the status of "minor revolutions" to "advancements" and upgrading the Kuhnian "normal science" to "advancement preparation," we would well serve both the future historians and keep the normal scien¬tists satisfied.
BY
I. BERNARD COHEN
Revolution in science is a vast ideological concept that historians use to place a structure on the evolution of scientif¬ic progress. In I. Bernard Cohen's book Revolution in Science he writes a historic analysis of the semantic transformation of this idea from the 17th to the 20th centuries. This idea is also examined in the political realm as the background to the scien¬tific revolutions. By providing criteria such as tests and stages of revolutions, Cohen takes a Kuhnian stance and defends his view that revolutions are a part of the history of science.
The book is structured with six sections and a conclusion. The first two sections are introductory and provide a historical background of revolution by giving an overview of the periods in which he contends revolutions occurred. Each of the final four sections discusses a century, beginning with the 17th and ending with the 20th. Cohen applies his criterion tests to various scientific concepts and practitioners in an attempt to determine what was and what was not a revolution. The conclusion discusses the idea of conversion as one common theme of all revolutions.
The variety of material that is contained in this book and its successful development into one solid theme results in a highly informative and exhaustive study. The views of philoso¬phers, historians, politicians, and scientists give a complete testimony from all perspectives. I was glad to see a discussion of Freud and psycholanalysis since this was the first inclusion of psychology that I have seen in the history of science. The history of science is not just physics, mathematics, biology, and chemistry. It also encompasses topics such as plate tectonics and behaviorism. Cohen masterly recognizes a variety of these sub¬jects and successfully incorporates them into his study.
One area which I feel Cohen should have included is the germ theory of disease. Pasteur, his bacteriological co-founder Koch, and Lister with his application of the theory to surgery, laid the foundations for modern medicine. In considering whether this passes Cohen's tests and stages, I feel that it does and is thus a revolution. Although Cohen could not include everything that exists within the scientific world, the germ theory seems much more important than some of the minor revolutions that he discusses.
I agree with Cohen that neither Copernicus nor Kepler achieved a full scientific revolution. The fact that the Coperni¬can system was not any more accurate or any less complicated than Ptolemy's was a good example of what he did not accomplish. By creating a revolution on paper, Copernicus started the journey that Galileo would eventually finish. I think that the classifi¬cation of Kepler as also only achieving a revolution on paper is interesting and is sufficiently supported because he did not influence or alter the practitioners of astronomy until 1687.
My own opinion is that we are in the midst of one continuous revolution. In the 17th century, it was relatively easy to select Newton as a revolutionary figure; however, in the 20th century, revolutions are everywhere from computers to genetic engineering. Cohen aptly names our period "The Age of Revolutions." For the coming 21st century, a new standard of what constitutes a revolu¬tionary concept will need to be defined. By downgrading the status of "minor revolutions" to "advancements" and upgrading the Kuhnian "normal science" to "advancement preparation," we would well serve both the future historians and keep the normal scien¬tists satisfied.
December 18, 2023
Sadly , I bought this book off a vender's stall in 1990, two blocks from the Brooklyn Public Library from which it was stolen. I read it before returning it to the library. This was a fairly brazen operation, not even bothering to take the subway a few stops, but selling the just stolen volumes practically on the doorstep of the library.
This book was a good read by the light of Thomas Kuhn Like many of us who were raised in the humanities, I was drilled with the history and philosophy of science, but not with much science.
"Paradigm."
You know I think this was a rare word when i was a lad. I mean Kuhn's book was published the year I was born but took a decade to spread its paradigm paradigm. The word existed but it was a little used term, much like the little word "trauma" which was confined to autopsy reports, little dreaming that it was destined to become the defining ethos of our culture.
The difference between trauma and hardship, like the difference between paradigm and theory has something to do with an aggrandized SUBJECT, or protagonist.
A new theory is usually a modest addition, and maybe some small replacement occurs as the old theory is at least partially discarded or modified. A new PARADIGM is recognized by the extensive demolition it wreaks.
This sweeping, crammed, survey of "paradigmatic" change really thrilled me and I went on to read his later book on Jefferson et al and science, which was also good.
This book was a good read by the light of Thomas Kuhn Like many of us who were raised in the humanities, I was drilled with the history and philosophy of science, but not with much science.
"Paradigm."
You know I think this was a rare word when i was a lad. I mean Kuhn's book was published the year I was born but took a decade to spread its paradigm paradigm. The word existed but it was a little used term, much like the little word "trauma" which was confined to autopsy reports, little dreaming that it was destined to become the defining ethos of our culture.
The difference between trauma and hardship, like the difference between paradigm and theory has something to do with an aggrandized SUBJECT, or protagonist.
A new theory is usually a modest addition, and maybe some small replacement occurs as the old theory is at least partially discarded or modified. A new PARADIGM is recognized by the extensive demolition it wreaks.
This sweeping, crammed, survey of "paradigmatic" change really thrilled me and I went on to read his later book on Jefferson et al and science, which was also good.
April 12, 2021
Cohen's history of revolutions in science has some fascinating chapters and is a good historical summary, well worth reading for anyone with an interest in the subject. My main disappointment (ironically, given my background) is that in my view, too much space is devoted to the philosophy and conceptual analysis of what it means for something to be a 'revolution.' Not an unworthy topic, although I'd expected a more strictly historical text.
Read
December 27, 2012Date Purchased???
February 1, 2013
Took his History of Science class before he died - what a remarkable synthesizer and what a fantastic book!
Displaying 1 - 6 of 6 reviews