What do you think?
History of Science: Antiquity to 1700
For well over 2,000 years, much of our fundamental "desire to know" has focused on science. Our commitment to science and technology has been so profound that these stand as probably the most powerful influences on human culture. To truly understand our Western heritage, our contemporary society, and ourselves as individuals, we need to know what science is and how it developed.
In this 36-lecture series, one of science's most acclaimed teachers takes you through science's complex evolution of thought and discovery, often originating from ideas that by today's technological perspective might be considered ridiculous or humorous, although many are still relevant today. You'll consider science's often fascinating history, from ancient times to the Scientific Revolution, in terms of several penetrating questions, including two of special importance: Who pursued science, and why? What happened, and why?
In the hands of Professor Principe, the history of science becomes far more than just a litany of dates, significant individuals, and breakthrough discoveries. In examining the evolution of science, he restores the vitally important context that has been lost from the discussion, showing how science is characterized by ideas that link eras widely separated in time. A primary theme is the relationship between science and religion. Today, we tend to see the two as separate and even antagonistic. Theology, in fact, is a principal motivator for scientific inquiry. And in the Middle Ages, Christianity and Islam were of paramount importance in preserving and furthering scientific knowledge.
In this 36-lecture series, one of science's most acclaimed teachers takes you through science's complex evolution of thought and discovery, often originating from ideas that by today's technological perspective might be considered ridiculous or humorous, although many are still relevant today. You'll consider science's often fascinating history, from ancient times to the Scientific Revolution, in terms of several penetrating questions, including two of special importance: Who pursued science, and why? What happened, and why?
In the hands of Professor Principe, the history of science becomes far more than just a litany of dates, significant individuals, and breakthrough discoveries. In examining the evolution of science, he restores the vitally important context that has been lost from the discussion, showing how science is characterized by ideas that link eras widely separated in time. A primary theme is the relationship between science and religion. Today, we tend to see the two as separate and even antagonistic. Theology, in fact, is a principal motivator for scientific inquiry. And in the Middle Ages, Christianity and Islam were of paramount importance in preserving and furthering scientific knowledge.
18 pages, Audio Cassette
First published July 1, 2003
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 19 of 19 reviews
December 6, 2019
I do not think that I can be an objective judge of this book, since it was so perfectly tailored to my interests. Not only had I read many of the books that Principe mentions, I had even visited many of the sites he discusses. In short, I enjoyed this book immensely, if only because it reinforced my ego.
Egotism aside, this is yet another worthy addition to the Great Courses catalogue. The history of science is a relatively unpopular subject. Most people are concerned with what is new in science, not with what is old. And when the history of science is discussed, it is normally as a kind of “textbook history”—wherein previous scientific theories are seen as a series of failed attempts to approximate the currently accepted model. Principe dubs this sort of history “Whig history,” and I think he is right to criticize this approach. For the past was not a failed attempt at the present, no more than France is a failed attempt at being Florida.
Any course attempting to cover so much material in so little time is bound to leave many dissatisfied. Omissions, simplifications, and abbreviations are inevitable. Considering these restraints, I especially appreciated the amount of space that Principe devoted to the Middle Ages. Even professional historians of science are apt to pass over this immensely interesting period quickly—treating it as a kind of hiatus between the ancient world and the Scientific Revolution. But I think Principe is right to see these years as productive and necessary.
Principe does much to counteract this image of greatness, decline, and renaissance by focusing on the Islamic Empire, which was the immediate inheritor of the classical world. Principe is certainly right, I think, to argue that our modern division between the ‘West’ and Islam is historically unfounded. After reading medieval Muslim and Christian philosophy, I have myself been struck by the close relationship between these two supposedly distinct cultures. In science, too, the Islamic Golden Age was an extremely fruitful time; and it is impossible to understand the subsequent flourishing of Western Europe without this context. After all, not only did Muslims scientists contribute directly to the scientific and philosophical traditions, but their use and translations of Greek texts was a major factor in the Western “Renaissance.”
Principe is also refreshing when it comes to “pseudo-science” and religion. While many science textbooks treat alchemy, magic, and astrology as failed attempts at chemistry, medicine, and astronomy, Principe points out that this linear view does not capture the reality of how these disciplines developed. Practices that we now consider to be pseudo-science co-existed for centuries with the forerunners of what we now consider proper science. Indeed, Principe rightly calls into question this demarcation, since historically all of these practices were genuine attempts to understand and manipulate the world. Principe is also right to question the modern notion that science and religion are necessarily in conflict, since historically this has generally not been the case. Indeed, for most of the time period covered in this course, science and religion were considered to be harmonious.
As you can see, Principe is very good at getting us to question our modern notions of what science is and how it develops. Yet I do think his insistence on arguing against “textbook history” does lead him to minimize the extent to which science really does advance. I thought this was most clear in his lectures on the figures of the Copernican Revolution, most particularly Newton. While Principe wanted to focus on all of the ways that Newton did not fit our ideal of a scientist, I think he did not spend nearly enough time discussing the genuine intellectual advantages of Newton’s system. That Newton was interested in alchemy is no doubt interesting; but I think it far more interesting that he created one of the great triumphs of intellectual history.
In other words, while “Whig” history can create an overly simple version of history, I do not think that its central premise—namely, that certain things improve over time—is fundamentally wrong. That being said, it is certainly wrong to see former ages as failed attempts at the present. Striking a balance between these two truths is very difficult, and everyone is liable to err on one side or the other. Criticize as we may, Principe has given us an accessible and valuable overview of the subject.
Egotism aside, this is yet another worthy addition to the Great Courses catalogue. The history of science is a relatively unpopular subject. Most people are concerned with what is new in science, not with what is old. And when the history of science is discussed, it is normally as a kind of “textbook history”—wherein previous scientific theories are seen as a series of failed attempts to approximate the currently accepted model. Principe dubs this sort of history “Whig history,” and I think he is right to criticize this approach. For the past was not a failed attempt at the present, no more than France is a failed attempt at being Florida.
Any course attempting to cover so much material in so little time is bound to leave many dissatisfied. Omissions, simplifications, and abbreviations are inevitable. Considering these restraints, I especially appreciated the amount of space that Principe devoted to the Middle Ages. Even professional historians of science are apt to pass over this immensely interesting period quickly—treating it as a kind of hiatus between the ancient world and the Scientific Revolution. But I think Principe is right to see these years as productive and necessary.
Principe does much to counteract this image of greatness, decline, and renaissance by focusing on the Islamic Empire, which was the immediate inheritor of the classical world. Principe is certainly right, I think, to argue that our modern division between the ‘West’ and Islam is historically unfounded. After reading medieval Muslim and Christian philosophy, I have myself been struck by the close relationship between these two supposedly distinct cultures. In science, too, the Islamic Golden Age was an extremely fruitful time; and it is impossible to understand the subsequent flourishing of Western Europe without this context. After all, not only did Muslims scientists contribute directly to the scientific and philosophical traditions, but their use and translations of Greek texts was a major factor in the Western “Renaissance.”
Principe is also refreshing when it comes to “pseudo-science” and religion. While many science textbooks treat alchemy, magic, and astrology as failed attempts at chemistry, medicine, and astronomy, Principe points out that this linear view does not capture the reality of how these disciplines developed. Practices that we now consider to be pseudo-science co-existed for centuries with the forerunners of what we now consider proper science. Indeed, Principe rightly calls into question this demarcation, since historically all of these practices were genuine attempts to understand and manipulate the world. Principe is also right to question the modern notion that science and religion are necessarily in conflict, since historically this has generally not been the case. Indeed, for most of the time period covered in this course, science and religion were considered to be harmonious.
As you can see, Principe is very good at getting us to question our modern notions of what science is and how it develops. Yet I do think his insistence on arguing against “textbook history” does lead him to minimize the extent to which science really does advance. I thought this was most clear in his lectures on the figures of the Copernican Revolution, most particularly Newton. While Principe wanted to focus on all of the ways that Newton did not fit our ideal of a scientist, I think he did not spend nearly enough time discussing the genuine intellectual advantages of Newton’s system. That Newton was interested in alchemy is no doubt interesting; but I think it far more interesting that he created one of the great triumphs of intellectual history.
In other words, while “Whig” history can create an overly simple version of history, I do not think that its central premise—namely, that certain things improve over time—is fundamentally wrong. That being said, it is certainly wrong to see former ages as failed attempts at the present. Striking a balance between these two truths is very difficult, and everyone is liable to err on one side or the other. Criticize as we may, Principe has given us an accessible and valuable overview of the subject.
June 14, 2025
Good survey. Suggests Greeks were the first to ask ‘why?’. Gives Islamic science its due. Notes the role of Platonism in the Renaissance and scientific revolution.
August 15, 2021
I borrowed this series of lectures online through my local library system. It’s about 36 lectures totalling about 18 hours, and I thoroughly enjoyed it, making relatively good time through the entire set of lectures. Principe is a fantastic lecturer and made all the subject matter come alive. If one has a sense of either history or science being dry and unpalatable subject matter, this lecture series might provoke a change in mind.
My academic advisor is a historian of science, though focuses on the 19th century and the science of the European Enlightenment. The Great Courses has a lecture series on the 18th century to the present, but I thought it would be nice to get a quick overview of the centuries that led up to that period, and so this focus of antiquity to 1700 was perfect in that respect.
Principe does warn at the beginning of these lectures that he is focused on the so-called ‘Western’ science tradition, which includes the history of science within the Islamic and Arab world. By this he means those societies intellectually in debt to the Greek philosophical tradition. He considers the Islamic world intellectually a part of the Western tradition, and spends a number of lectures focused exclusively on scientists in the Islamic world and their vital contributions to contemporary science. One interesting thing he points out is the numerous words in English today that begin with the prefix “Al-” which can be traced back to the Arab world which very much maintained the scientific and philosophical works from Greco-Roman antiquity which the late medieval world would only be able to recover by way of them. Words like: algebra, alchemy, alphabet, algorithm, alkaline, and so on. “Al-“, meaning God in Arabic, also alludes to a really interesting focus of these lectures, which is how intimately scientific inquiry for most of human history was entangled with theology. Natural philosophy (science) and theology were so often indistinguishable from each other. Reading Adrienne Mayor’s book “God and Robots” does really put into perspective the extent to which technology and theology were bound up together.
Despite Principe’s view that the Islamic intellectual tradition was not really distinct from the European one (which in many ways conforms to some of the points Edward Said made in Orientalism), he does sometimes betray a certain Orientalist view of history or at least portrays those of scientists at the time. For example, he talks about the obscurantist tradition of various scientists and alchemists of the time (Newton for example was heavily influenced and deeply interested in alchemy) were obscurantist and fascinated by the occult precisely because they were trying to associate themselves with the great Arabic tradition of science (at least that is Principe’s explanation). Later scientists who wanted to dissociate themselves with this Arabic tradition dropped the 'al-' of alchemy and alchemists to later style themselves as simply 'chemists'.
Principe did actually spend some early lectures going over the astronomers, scientists, and engineers of Ancient Egypt and Mesopotamia, but made strong distinctions between these practical forms of engineering, and the later Greek traditions of natural philosophical inquiry.
All that being said, I would love to learn more about the global science tradition, and technologies, discoveries, inquiries made by societies in South and East Asia, Turtle Island, and South America, Africa, and so on. There is such an enormous body of human knowledge that was amassed in these other areas within which humans lived, and I’m also curious about learning about that some time also. Hope to work through some course material on that. “Global Cultures of Science and Technology” was one of the courses I applied to TA in this coming semester, but have been assigned to TA some other STS courses, but I’d like to work through some of that material some time.
Anyway, I found so many interesting things in this course. I of course gravitated to the things associated with waters and mills. Thales was the figure that in many ways opened this course, and he was an important figure that believed all material reality was composed of a fundamental element, which he believed to be water. I think it’s fascinating that such a foundational figure in the history of science perceived water as such a fundamental building block of material reality. A similar form of monism would be revived in the 17th century by the chemist Jan Baptist van Helmont.
Principe then goes into an interesting dichotomy between the later Roman pragmatism and the earlier Greek emphasis on philosophy, contemplation, and Plato’s emphasis that things are good not only for their utility, but also as objects of contemplation. That is objects do not find their good only in the way they change the environment to conform to human-will but how they can reflexively change the human mind and will itself. This reminded me of Thoreau saying that we shape our tools and they eventually shape us. I did not realize Plato had already gestured at something very similar.
In contrast to the philosophical and contemplative Greeks, the Romans (like the contemporary imperialists of today) were far more pragmatic, and interested in technology and forms of inquiry that had a practical purpose (very much for the purpose of control and domination). What’s interesting is how closely notions of ‘art’ and ‘techne’/’technology’ were linked. Technique was a method, an ‘art’ of doing something of practical consequence, which is almost a notion opposite to the idea of art today, in so much as Oscar Wilde denoted art as being necessarily ‘useless’. Yet art and technology are still so intimately connected, to the extent that they are forms of praxis.
It was tremendously fascinating to hear how Roman aqueducts were constructed and how precisely the gradient of these constructed waterways had to be implemented over very long distances, boring through mountains and constructing bridges over valleys. These aqueduct bridges were so well built that they continued to be used as pedestrian and equestrian bridges through the Middle Ages into the present. During the medieval period though many of the areas in which these aqueduct bridges were built did not have the resources to maintain them as aqueducts, hence why they were used to convey travellers instead of water. The first century (C.E.) waterworks engineer Frontinus gets a mention for his work in the city of Rome. This is an excerpt from some of the course notes regarding Roman water infrastructure:
“Using tunnels, sluices, and aqueducts, Roman engineers were able to supply abundant water to cities across the empire.
The water line supplying the city of Nemausus (modern Nîmes) runs for 35 miles; about 20 miles runs underground (3 miles through solid rock) and about 4 miles, on elevated aqueducts (including the 1,100-foot-long, 180-feet-high Pont du Gard).
In cities, lead plumbing brought water directly into the houses of the rich.
The city of Rome used about 150 to 200 million gallons of water a day.”
Principe also mentions old water mills in Rome during Antiquity and has a really fascinating section on how mills proliferated after the collapse of Rome, since access to slaves was drastically reduced after the erosion of empire. Some discoveries of Roman mills shortly before its collapse have caused some to contest this theory, but I think no matter what, water mills do put forward a very interesting question regarding labour, technology, and political power and domination.
Principe also identifies the improved efficiency of waterwheels as one of the most significant factors in the emergence of the “Renaissance of the Twelfth Century”. He also emphasizes how water wheels were the principle source of energy in the new colonial mining projects as all the minerals close to the surface were depleted over time:
“Larger, deeper mines required substantial mechanization; the waterwheel was the key power source for running pumps, bucket wheels, crushers, mechanized bellows, and so forth.”
This stuff is a lot closer to the period of my own academic research interests. The Upper Canada sawmills were largely selling their processed lumber to the British Navy, and one of their central preoccupations in the 19th century was the Opium Wars. It will certainly be something I want to look into more regarding the Opium Wars which did involve a significant triangulation of commodity circulation between silver mines of the Spanish colonies in the so-called ‘New World’, opium plantations of British colonies in India, and tea plantations in imperial China. The extent to which water mills powered these silver mines is something I will certainly have to look into. What extent coal and steam played into it, and what extent the old-fashioned water wheels did so. I'm curious how these mills aided in various processes of extraction, from deforestation, monocropped agriculture, to mining.
There will definitely be times I will have to refer back to things I encountered in this lecture series. It was a really great introductory overview to the history of science.
My academic advisor is a historian of science, though focuses on the 19th century and the science of the European Enlightenment. The Great Courses has a lecture series on the 18th century to the present, but I thought it would be nice to get a quick overview of the centuries that led up to that period, and so this focus of antiquity to 1700 was perfect in that respect.
Principe does warn at the beginning of these lectures that he is focused on the so-called ‘Western’ science tradition, which includes the history of science within the Islamic and Arab world. By this he means those societies intellectually in debt to the Greek philosophical tradition. He considers the Islamic world intellectually a part of the Western tradition, and spends a number of lectures focused exclusively on scientists in the Islamic world and their vital contributions to contemporary science. One interesting thing he points out is the numerous words in English today that begin with the prefix “Al-” which can be traced back to the Arab world which very much maintained the scientific and philosophical works from Greco-Roman antiquity which the late medieval world would only be able to recover by way of them. Words like: algebra, alchemy, alphabet, algorithm, alkaline, and so on. “Al-“, meaning God in Arabic, also alludes to a really interesting focus of these lectures, which is how intimately scientific inquiry for most of human history was entangled with theology. Natural philosophy (science) and theology were so often indistinguishable from each other. Reading Adrienne Mayor’s book “God and Robots” does really put into perspective the extent to which technology and theology were bound up together.
Despite Principe’s view that the Islamic intellectual tradition was not really distinct from the European one (which in many ways conforms to some of the points Edward Said made in Orientalism), he does sometimes betray a certain Orientalist view of history or at least portrays those of scientists at the time. For example, he talks about the obscurantist tradition of various scientists and alchemists of the time (Newton for example was heavily influenced and deeply interested in alchemy) were obscurantist and fascinated by the occult precisely because they were trying to associate themselves with the great Arabic tradition of science (at least that is Principe’s explanation). Later scientists who wanted to dissociate themselves with this Arabic tradition dropped the 'al-' of alchemy and alchemists to later style themselves as simply 'chemists'.
Principe did actually spend some early lectures going over the astronomers, scientists, and engineers of Ancient Egypt and Mesopotamia, but made strong distinctions between these practical forms of engineering, and the later Greek traditions of natural philosophical inquiry.
All that being said, I would love to learn more about the global science tradition, and technologies, discoveries, inquiries made by societies in South and East Asia, Turtle Island, and South America, Africa, and so on. There is such an enormous body of human knowledge that was amassed in these other areas within which humans lived, and I’m also curious about learning about that some time also. Hope to work through some course material on that. “Global Cultures of Science and Technology” was one of the courses I applied to TA in this coming semester, but have been assigned to TA some other STS courses, but I’d like to work through some of that material some time.
Anyway, I found so many interesting things in this course. I of course gravitated to the things associated with waters and mills. Thales was the figure that in many ways opened this course, and he was an important figure that believed all material reality was composed of a fundamental element, which he believed to be water. I think it’s fascinating that such a foundational figure in the history of science perceived water as such a fundamental building block of material reality. A similar form of monism would be revived in the 17th century by the chemist Jan Baptist van Helmont.
Principe then goes into an interesting dichotomy between the later Roman pragmatism and the earlier Greek emphasis on philosophy, contemplation, and Plato’s emphasis that things are good not only for their utility, but also as objects of contemplation. That is objects do not find their good only in the way they change the environment to conform to human-will but how they can reflexively change the human mind and will itself. This reminded me of Thoreau saying that we shape our tools and they eventually shape us. I did not realize Plato had already gestured at something very similar.
In contrast to the philosophical and contemplative Greeks, the Romans (like the contemporary imperialists of today) were far more pragmatic, and interested in technology and forms of inquiry that had a practical purpose (very much for the purpose of control and domination). What’s interesting is how closely notions of ‘art’ and ‘techne’/’technology’ were linked. Technique was a method, an ‘art’ of doing something of practical consequence, which is almost a notion opposite to the idea of art today, in so much as Oscar Wilde denoted art as being necessarily ‘useless’. Yet art and technology are still so intimately connected, to the extent that they are forms of praxis.
It was tremendously fascinating to hear how Roman aqueducts were constructed and how precisely the gradient of these constructed waterways had to be implemented over very long distances, boring through mountains and constructing bridges over valleys. These aqueduct bridges were so well built that they continued to be used as pedestrian and equestrian bridges through the Middle Ages into the present. During the medieval period though many of the areas in which these aqueduct bridges were built did not have the resources to maintain them as aqueducts, hence why they were used to convey travellers instead of water. The first century (C.E.) waterworks engineer Frontinus gets a mention for his work in the city of Rome. This is an excerpt from some of the course notes regarding Roman water infrastructure:
“Using tunnels, sluices, and aqueducts, Roman engineers were able to supply abundant water to cities across the empire.
The water line supplying the city of Nemausus (modern Nîmes) runs for 35 miles; about 20 miles runs underground (3 miles through solid rock) and about 4 miles, on elevated aqueducts (including the 1,100-foot-long, 180-feet-high Pont du Gard).
In cities, lead plumbing brought water directly into the houses of the rich.
The city of Rome used about 150 to 200 million gallons of water a day.”
Principe also mentions old water mills in Rome during Antiquity and has a really fascinating section on how mills proliferated after the collapse of Rome, since access to slaves was drastically reduced after the erosion of empire. Some discoveries of Roman mills shortly before its collapse have caused some to contest this theory, but I think no matter what, water mills do put forward a very interesting question regarding labour, technology, and political power and domination.
Principe also identifies the improved efficiency of waterwheels as one of the most significant factors in the emergence of the “Renaissance of the Twelfth Century”. He also emphasizes how water wheels were the principle source of energy in the new colonial mining projects as all the minerals close to the surface were depleted over time:
“Larger, deeper mines required substantial mechanization; the waterwheel was the key power source for running pumps, bucket wheels, crushers, mechanized bellows, and so forth.”
This stuff is a lot closer to the period of my own academic research interests. The Upper Canada sawmills were largely selling their processed lumber to the British Navy, and one of their central preoccupations in the 19th century was the Opium Wars. It will certainly be something I want to look into more regarding the Opium Wars which did involve a significant triangulation of commodity circulation between silver mines of the Spanish colonies in the so-called ‘New World’, opium plantations of British colonies in India, and tea plantations in imperial China. The extent to which water mills powered these silver mines is something I will certainly have to look into. What extent coal and steam played into it, and what extent the old-fashioned water wheels did so. I'm curious how these mills aided in various processes of extraction, from deforestation, monocropped agriculture, to mining.
There will definitely be times I will have to refer back to things I encountered in this lecture series. It was a really great introductory overview to the history of science.
January 7, 2015
Interesting, well written and informative. However, i felt like lectures are lacking some crucial part of history and this is history of technology. Probably it's an undeserved criticism and more personal than objective. If you want to understand the relationship between religion and science in the past, the reason behind greatness of Plato and Aristotle and role of the historical context - you are welcome.
April 27, 2021
Excellent all around
Excellent professor with innate grasp of subject, facilitating his comprehensive overview of long history/broad subject (and bonus: engaging delivery!). Each significant player and their unique context clicked into place along the way like train tracks on path through two thousand years of evolution of science. Highly recommend.
Excellent professor with innate grasp of subject, facilitating his comprehensive overview of long history/broad subject (and bonus: engaging delivery!). Each significant player and their unique context clicked into place along the way like train tracks on path through two thousand years of evolution of science. Highly recommend.
September 4, 2021
This audiobook series is a very good overview of the History of Science from antiquity to 1700. Principe does an excellent job showing us how the ancients' ideas of the world influenced modern man. He has explained deep scientific issues in clear easy to understand language.
July 23, 2014
I did not finish most of this series of lectures, but I intend to go back to it.
October 17, 2022
Fails to mention Giordano Bruno. Which, given that two of the main themes of this course are the relation between science and religion on the one hand and our worldview (what we perceive the universe to be and what our relation is to it) on the other, is an extreme oversight.
Makes me question the framing of other interactions between science and religion, such as the way the Galilean trial was touched upon.
Makes me question the framing of other interactions between science and religion, such as the way the Galilean trial was touched upon.
September 30, 2019
This is a well thought out and deep set of lectures. As someone who loves history and science, it was really interesting to get a different perspective on the important figures in science and the context for their thinking at the times they made their discoveries.
Highly highly recommend.
Highly highly recommend.
February 23, 2020
Amazing.
August 24, 2020
Very focused on astronomy and physics; very little about chemistry, biology, and medicine
February 19, 2023
An amusing, informative and elegant journey from the presocratic era to Newton
March 31, 2015
These lectures are excellent. Part I is on the Greek origins of science. Principe states that Plato’s Timeaus is a “way to think about the world” and it is “a likely account of its creation and operation.” The eternal world became the model for the self. Looking for natural patterns as opposed to magical interventions also became the basis for the science we know today. Aristotle believes that all natural objects have internal properties of change and motion. They are “ensouled” and propelled to a final End, teleological notions that are largely dismissed today, although it’s hard to argue against life’s progression from “seed” to a more or less natural and predictable “final form.”
Part II discusses the close alliance between religious thought and science in the middle ages. Rather than opposition, the Western Church provided active support for the emerging sciences because nature illustrated the glorification of God. The discussion of Islamic science (astrology, mathematics and optics) and the critical role “the Arab West” played in preserving and advancing the insights of the Greeks is outstanding. During this period, and due in part to Arab thought, Aristotle’s science was central in Western Europe (scholasticism and its distinctive methodology: question, commentary, disputation, respondent, all in binary form). Principe tells us that the naming of ages (medieval, dark, renaissance) is pervaded with subjectivism and pejorative connotations. The breaks between eras are not sharp, he says, and the continuity is extensive. Yet, over time, new patterns emerge. The study of the night sky moved earth from its central place in the universe. Aristotle’s emphasis on quality gave way to quantitative studies; the questions moved from why a body falls to how. Analysis became increasingly reductive; explanation increasingly mechanistic. Progressively, God’s active role in the cosmos was removed.
Part III takes the discussion up to 1700 and covers Copernicus, Tycho, Kepler, Galileo; 17th century chemistry and “the Newtonian century.” Overall, Principe argues that it’s important that we not neglect the historical roots of modern science. Looking back at the close alliance between religion and science, Principe downplays the notion of conflict. He argues that religious institutions were the chief patron of “natural philosophy” throughout the modern period and that figures such as Newton were inspired by religious motivation. “Each generation,” Principe says, reads “the ‘Book of Nature’ over again and provides its own interpretation based on previous interpretations, new ideas, and cultural preoccupations.” The development of science in this way – drawing on the past, adding to it – is the interesting part of these lectures. In his comments on the historical alliance between science and religion, Principe states that the conflict exists only today. He implies that there doesn’t need to be a conflict but that part of his argument is overdone. As our knowledge of the cosmos expands, it’s increasingly difficult for many to see a role for religion.
Part II discusses the close alliance between religious thought and science in the middle ages. Rather than opposition, the Western Church provided active support for the emerging sciences because nature illustrated the glorification of God. The discussion of Islamic science (astrology, mathematics and optics) and the critical role “the Arab West” played in preserving and advancing the insights of the Greeks is outstanding. During this period, and due in part to Arab thought, Aristotle’s science was central in Western Europe (scholasticism and its distinctive methodology: question, commentary, disputation, respondent, all in binary form). Principe tells us that the naming of ages (medieval, dark, renaissance) is pervaded with subjectivism and pejorative connotations. The breaks between eras are not sharp, he says, and the continuity is extensive. Yet, over time, new patterns emerge. The study of the night sky moved earth from its central place in the universe. Aristotle’s emphasis on quality gave way to quantitative studies; the questions moved from why a body falls to how. Analysis became increasingly reductive; explanation increasingly mechanistic. Progressively, God’s active role in the cosmos was removed.
Part III takes the discussion up to 1700 and covers Copernicus, Tycho, Kepler, Galileo; 17th century chemistry and “the Newtonian century.” Overall, Principe argues that it’s important that we not neglect the historical roots of modern science. Looking back at the close alliance between religion and science, Principe downplays the notion of conflict. He argues that religious institutions were the chief patron of “natural philosophy” throughout the modern period and that figures such as Newton were inspired by religious motivation. “Each generation,” Principe says, reads “the ‘Book of Nature’ over again and provides its own interpretation based on previous interpretations, new ideas, and cultural preoccupations.” The development of science in this way – drawing on the past, adding to it – is the interesting part of these lectures. In his comments on the historical alliance between science and religion, Principe states that the conflict exists only today. He implies that there doesn’t need to be a conflict but that part of his argument is overdone. As our knowledge of the cosmos expands, it’s increasingly difficult for many to see a role for religion.
March 4, 2015
This is very heavily a course on the history of scientific thought, i.e. natural philosophy, with an emphasis on the history of what we would now call physics and astronomy. Technology really doesn't get a look-in. It's also a little bit boring some of the time.
On the other hand, if you are interested in, say, medieval and renaissance technology and life, knowing something about the scientific personae who are name-dropped in history. It's also a good clean up of "lies my teacher told me" about the development of science thought, and about the history of chemistry.
I need to re-listen to this -- at least, the 2nd and 3rd parts of the series-- to absorb more.
On the other hand, if you are interested in, say, medieval and renaissance technology and life, knowing something about the scientific personae who are name-dropped in history. It's also a good clean up of "lies my teacher told me" about the development of science thought, and about the history of chemistry.
I need to re-listen to this -- at least, the 2nd and 3rd parts of the series-- to absorb more.
February 20, 2014
He focuses somewhat on the chemistry side of things but overall a good history. He does a good job of incorporating the philosophical side of natural science and the correlation of what is widely considered the Western scientific tradition with the Arabic scientific tradition, showing that they are really one and the same.
June 11, 2013
Historic overview with a lot of creationism.
onhold
November 3, 2014
Lecture 1/36 - Beginning the Journey
Lecture #2 - Babylonians, Egyptians and Greeks
Read
February 23, 2015a solid survey, but I would have preferred group antiquity with medieval and start a new course with the early modern. treatment of the classic scientific revolution seemed a touch thin.
December 11, 2016
Marvelous course. Reminded me the joy of watching "Cosmos" both original and Neil deGrasse version. Awesome.
Displaying 1 - 19 of 19 reviews