What do you think?
Rate this book
The Scientific Background to Modern Philosophy: Selected Readings
A supplementary text for courses in the history of modern philosophy, helping to link developments in modern science and modern philosophy.
176 pages, Paperback
First published May 1, 1989
5 people are currently reading
77 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 - 4 of 4 reviews
March 1, 2025
En este libro, Mike curates some key texts from several historically great nerds who contributed hella sauce for the development of modern science, and with a general focus of highlighting the evolving relationship between science and philosophy. It lets readers directly engage with primary sources from the following philosohomies: Aristotle, Copernicus, Bacon, Galileo, Descartes, Boyle, Huygens, and Newton.
What I appreciated is that the selected readings follow chronological order and, for the most part, provide relevant passages for a philosophy of science curriculum. It also does a good job of including key methodological texts that capture the early and evolving principles that would later form the foundation of modern scientific methodology. The content structure, as I interpreted it, begins with Aristotelian naturalism before making an abrupt jump to the Scientific Renaissance, properly starting with Copernicus and culminating in Newton.
Now, Mikey here supplements these texts with contextual introductions in an attempt to aid readers in grasping the broader intellectual landscape in which these advancements in Natural Philosophy were situated (I'd say scientific, but this term wasn't around until a century after Newton's death). By my standards, Mike's attempt here is meagre, as he doesn't delve further than 1-2 pages of already well-proven historical analysis. What he provides is likely already known by an average 1st year philosophy student, but the real problem is that the guy is really a tease. On several occasions, he'd drop some random-ass fact without any further mention of it, having me search the stuff on the web to understand what the fuq he just mentioned. Like, how are you just gonna bring up all the beefs these guys had with other big dawgs and then not explain them? For example, the bickering between Leibniz and Newton gets mentioned in a sentence at least twice throughout the book, but no actual breakdown or brief overview of what went down. Instead, we get referenced to some other guy's book, who translated another guy, who wrote about a guy that knew one of the guys who kept records of the tea. I'm obviously exaggerating, but he fr relies heavily on referencing to other sources for sh*t he brings up that could’ve easily been summed up in one or two sentences. Or just don’t bring it up if you ain’t gonna explain it? Cos the alternative is your readers being sent to external sources or the web, doing your job of painting the picture for themselves. To wrap this up, by my calculations the author's original content comprises only 15% of the book, which relates to the above and hence is the general basis for why I'm taking the stars off.
All in all, I still extracted much benefit out of the book, but since that benefit mostly came directly from the prime sources therein, I can only give Mike credit for curating them in a relevant manner. I get that this kind of book is meant to supplement academic curriculum, but that still doesn't justify such low original contribution margin from the author. It just comes off slimy af, Mike, cos you be charging people cash for 85% of dead homies' work. If that's the game, then I'm about to start flipping Wikipedia summaries and charging tuition. Come on bruh.
What I appreciated is that the selected readings follow chronological order and, for the most part, provide relevant passages for a philosophy of science curriculum. It also does a good job of including key methodological texts that capture the early and evolving principles that would later form the foundation of modern scientific methodology. The content structure, as I interpreted it, begins with Aristotelian naturalism before making an abrupt jump to the Scientific Renaissance, properly starting with Copernicus and culminating in Newton.
Now, Mikey here supplements these texts with contextual introductions in an attempt to aid readers in grasping the broader intellectual landscape in which these advancements in Natural Philosophy were situated (I'd say scientific, but this term wasn't around until a century after Newton's death). By my standards, Mike's attempt here is meagre, as he doesn't delve further than 1-2 pages of already well-proven historical analysis. What he provides is likely already known by an average 1st year philosophy student, but the real problem is that the guy is really a tease. On several occasions, he'd drop some random-ass fact without any further mention of it, having me search the stuff on the web to understand what the fuq he just mentioned. Like, how are you just gonna bring up all the beefs these guys had with other big dawgs and then not explain them? For example, the bickering between Leibniz and Newton gets mentioned in a sentence at least twice throughout the book, but no actual breakdown or brief overview of what went down. Instead, we get referenced to some other guy's book, who translated another guy, who wrote about a guy that knew one of the guys who kept records of the tea. I'm obviously exaggerating, but he fr relies heavily on referencing to other sources for sh*t he brings up that could’ve easily been summed up in one or two sentences. Or just don’t bring it up if you ain’t gonna explain it? Cos the alternative is your readers being sent to external sources or the web, doing your job of painting the picture for themselves. To wrap this up, by my calculations the author's original content comprises only 15% of the book, which relates to the above and hence is the general basis for why I'm taking the stars off.
All in all, I still extracted much benefit out of the book, but since that benefit mostly came directly from the prime sources therein, I can only give Mike credit for curating them in a relevant manner. I get that this kind of book is meant to supplement academic curriculum, but that still doesn't justify such low original contribution margin from the author. It just comes off slimy af, Mike, cos you be charging people cash for 85% of dead homies' work. If that's the game, then I'm about to start flipping Wikipedia summaries and charging tuition. Come on bruh.
March 9, 2020
Well-distributed passages amongst chronological order but lacking some important directly contrasting details between scientists with similar discoveries. Overall, a good way to visualize the philosophical aspects of well-known scientists and the way that each approached the consideration of faith alongside science.
Read
January 22, 2016501 S4168 1989
January 9, 2025
ISU: Philosophy of Science
Displaying 1 - 4 of 4 reviews