What do you think?
Rate this book
Uncommon Sense: The Heretical Nature of Science
Most people believe that science arose as a natural end-product of our innate intelligence and curiosity, as an inevitable stage in human intellectual development. But physicist and educator Alan Cromer disputes this belief. Cromer argues that science is not the natural unfolding of human
potential, but the invention of a particular culture, Greece, in a particular historical period. Indeed, far from being natural, scientific thinking goes so far against the grain of conventional human thought that if it hadn't been discovered in Greece, it might not have been discovered at all.
In Uncommon Sense , Alan Cromer develops the argument that science represents a radically new and different way of thinking. Using Piaget's stages of intellectual development, he shows that conventional thinking remains mired in subjective, "egocentric" ways of looking at the world--most people even
today still believe in astrology, ESP, UFOs, ghosts and other paranormal phenomena--a mode of thought that science has outgrown. He provides a fascinating explanation of why science began in Greece, contrasting the Greek practice of debate to the Judaic reliance on prophets for acquiring knowledge.
Other factors, such as a maritime economy and wandering scholars (both of which prevented parochialism) and an essentially literary religion not dominated by priests, also promoted in Greece an objective, analytical way of thinking not found elsewhere in the ancient world. He examines India and
China and explains why science could not develop in either country. In China, for instance, astronomy served only the state, and the private study of astronomy was forbidden. Cromer also provides a perceptive account of science in Renaissance Europe and of figures such as Copernicus, Galileo, and
Newton. Along the way, Cromer touches on many intriguing topics, arguing, for instance, that much of science is essential complete; there are no new elements yet to be discovered. He debunks the vaunted SETI (Search for Extraterrestrial Intelligence) project, which costs taxpayers millions each
year, showing that physical limits--such as the melting point of metal--put an absolute limit on the speed of space travel, making trips to even the nearest star all but impossible. Finally, Cromer discusses the deplorable state of science education in America and suggests several provocative
innovations to improve high school education, including a radical proposal to give all students an intensive eighth and ninth year program, eliminating the last two years of high school.
Uncommon Sense is an illuminating look at science, filled with provocative observations. Whether challenging Thomas Kuhn's theory of scientific revolutions, or extolling the virtues of Euclid's Elements , Alan Cromer is always insightful, outspoken, and refreshingly original.
potential, but the invention of a particular culture, Greece, in a particular historical period. Indeed, far from being natural, scientific thinking goes so far against the grain of conventional human thought that if it hadn't been discovered in Greece, it might not have been discovered at all.
In Uncommon Sense , Alan Cromer develops the argument that science represents a radically new and different way of thinking. Using Piaget's stages of intellectual development, he shows that conventional thinking remains mired in subjective, "egocentric" ways of looking at the world--most people even
today still believe in astrology, ESP, UFOs, ghosts and other paranormal phenomena--a mode of thought that science has outgrown. He provides a fascinating explanation of why science began in Greece, contrasting the Greek practice of debate to the Judaic reliance on prophets for acquiring knowledge.
Other factors, such as a maritime economy and wandering scholars (both of which prevented parochialism) and an essentially literary religion not dominated by priests, also promoted in Greece an objective, analytical way of thinking not found elsewhere in the ancient world. He examines India and
China and explains why science could not develop in either country. In China, for instance, astronomy served only the state, and the private study of astronomy was forbidden. Cromer also provides a perceptive account of science in Renaissance Europe and of figures such as Copernicus, Galileo, and
Newton. Along the way, Cromer touches on many intriguing topics, arguing, for instance, that much of science is essential complete; there are no new elements yet to be discovered. He debunks the vaunted SETI (Search for Extraterrestrial Intelligence) project, which costs taxpayers millions each
year, showing that physical limits--such as the melting point of metal--put an absolute limit on the speed of space travel, making trips to even the nearest star all but impossible. Finally, Cromer discusses the deplorable state of science education in America and suggests several provocative
innovations to improve high school education, including a radical proposal to give all students an intensive eighth and ninth year program, eliminating the last two years of high school.
Uncommon Sense is an illuminating look at science, filled with provocative observations. Whether challenging Thomas Kuhn's theory of scientific revolutions, or extolling the virtues of Euclid's Elements , Alan Cromer is always insightful, outspoken, and refreshingly original.
240 pages, Hardcover
First published January 1, 1993
11 people are currently reading
464 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 - 7 of 7 reviews
September 18, 2008
This is a very interesting, and scary, book. I don't agree entirely with everything in it, but the key arguments make a lot of sense. (Basing a framework on the ideas of a single psychologist is generally a bad idea, but at least he uses Piaget instead of, say, Jung.)
Cromer argues persuasively that science is not a natural outcome of human intelligence. Science, the basis of which is objectivity, is a very unusual thing for humans to stumble upon. While many human inventions occurred independently more than once, Cromer shows that science (not technology, which isn't rooted in objectivity) occurred only once, in ancient Greece (and was subsequently kept alive in India and the Middle East before getting back to Europe).
The unnaturalness of science is clear to anyone who has tried to teach introductory science classes, or who looks around today and sees a world filled with ideas of magic, religion, parapsychology, and aliens.
One natural consequence, of course, is that science can die out. Progress is not inevitable - witness what happened in Muslim countries in the past thousand years, or what happened in Europe in the Middle Ages. Science needs people fighting for it.
But science is not exclusive. Everyone who can learn to read can learn basic science. The fact that they don't is a failure of our education system, and of a culture that will happily take gifts from science while never accepting its basis.
Cromer argues persuasively that science is not a natural outcome of human intelligence. Science, the basis of which is objectivity, is a very unusual thing for humans to stumble upon. While many human inventions occurred independently more than once, Cromer shows that science (not technology, which isn't rooted in objectivity) occurred only once, in ancient Greece (and was subsequently kept alive in India and the Middle East before getting back to Europe).
The unnaturalness of science is clear to anyone who has tried to teach introductory science classes, or who looks around today and sees a world filled with ideas of magic, religion, parapsychology, and aliens.
One natural consequence, of course, is that science can die out. Progress is not inevitable - witness what happened in Muslim countries in the past thousand years, or what happened in Europe in the Middle Ages. Science needs people fighting for it.
But science is not exclusive. Everyone who can learn to read can learn basic science. The fact that they don't is a failure of our education system, and of a culture that will happily take gifts from science while never accepting its basis.
December 27, 2024
we agree that the teaching of science to kids needs a reform, but on nothing else. again: not his fault that he is wrong about the future (like californium being the last possible element) but it is his fault that he centers all of human history on greece. no other peoples ever invented anything, obviously!
February 20, 2012
What is science, how did it come about, how is it done, and how should it be taught?
Answering these questions, Alan Cromer has written a book that should certainly be read by every science educator. It should also be read by most people interested in the history and philosophy of science as all of these topics are covered.
Edward O. Wilson, in "On Human Nature" writes that "No intellectual vice is more crippling that defiantly self-indulgent anthropocentrism." It seems Cromer would enthusiastically agree since a central argument in this book is that human thought is mired in unscientific egocentrism and that it took the specific circumstances of ancient Greece and later Europe to give us science.
This stands in contrast to the idea that science inevitably and naturally arises as knowledge progresses. I tend to agree with Cromer that this is incorrect and that it took a specific intellectual climate and historical circumstance for science to develop. Marshalling evidence from the cultures of China, India, and the Middle East where nearly all the ingredients to produce science were present -- such as literacy and mathematics -- Cromer argues that there was nevertheless something vital missing because science did not develop in those cultures. This vital missing element is the rejection of private knowledge or intuition as valid sources of knowledge. This would only come later with the independent European merchant class rediscovering Greek ideas and epitomized by Galileo.
My area of scholarly interest is in the cognitive science of religion and so abuts this topic closely. I would say that Cromer's conclusions are fairly sound. Scientific explanations are often counterintuitive while religious and supernatural explanations are often intuitive. It takes conscious effort to master logical and rational thought while nonscientific explanations are often breezily efficient (and just as airy). This is why science doesn't arise "naturally."
The main thrust of Cromer's book (published in 1993) seems to bear out under scrutiny. Many of the essays, especially "Knowledge Change in Response to Data" in the book Imagining the Impossible: Magical, Scientific, and Religious Thinking in Children agree with his conclusions. Mentioning that book of collected papers by psychologists brings me to my one serious criticism of "Uncommon Sense": its sparse use of psychological sources to back up its claims. Cromer mainly uses Piaget to support his claims of mental development and egocentrism. While I think he is largely correct, this makes for a weak argumentative case.
I'll conclude by quoting a paragraph in the author's own conclusion:
"Science is a new factor in human existence that goes against the grain of our egocentric mind. It originated in the democratic practices of ancient Greece, which replaced private dogma with public debate. Based on the heretical belief in an external world that can't be known intuitively, science replaced speculation and faith with reason and observation. Much of our progress, both political and technological, has come from accepting that truth can arise only from the competition of free and informed minds. It cannot be imposed by cannon or canon" (p. 205).
On Human Nature: Revised Edition
Imagining the Impossible: Magical, Scientific, and Religious Thinking in Children
Answering these questions, Alan Cromer has written a book that should certainly be read by every science educator. It should also be read by most people interested in the history and philosophy of science as all of these topics are covered.
Edward O. Wilson, in "On Human Nature" writes that "No intellectual vice is more crippling that defiantly self-indulgent anthropocentrism." It seems Cromer would enthusiastically agree since a central argument in this book is that human thought is mired in unscientific egocentrism and that it took the specific circumstances of ancient Greece and later Europe to give us science.
This stands in contrast to the idea that science inevitably and naturally arises as knowledge progresses. I tend to agree with Cromer that this is incorrect and that it took a specific intellectual climate and historical circumstance for science to develop. Marshalling evidence from the cultures of China, India, and the Middle East where nearly all the ingredients to produce science were present -- such as literacy and mathematics -- Cromer argues that there was nevertheless something vital missing because science did not develop in those cultures. This vital missing element is the rejection of private knowledge or intuition as valid sources of knowledge. This would only come later with the independent European merchant class rediscovering Greek ideas and epitomized by Galileo.
My area of scholarly interest is in the cognitive science of religion and so abuts this topic closely. I would say that Cromer's conclusions are fairly sound. Scientific explanations are often counterintuitive while religious and supernatural explanations are often intuitive. It takes conscious effort to master logical and rational thought while nonscientific explanations are often breezily efficient (and just as airy). This is why science doesn't arise "naturally."
The main thrust of Cromer's book (published in 1993) seems to bear out under scrutiny. Many of the essays, especially "Knowledge Change in Response to Data" in the book Imagining the Impossible: Magical, Scientific, and Religious Thinking in Children agree with his conclusions. Mentioning that book of collected papers by psychologists brings me to my one serious criticism of "Uncommon Sense": its sparse use of psychological sources to back up its claims. Cromer mainly uses Piaget to support his claims of mental development and egocentrism. While I think he is largely correct, this makes for a weak argumentative case.
I'll conclude by quoting a paragraph in the author's own conclusion:
"Science is a new factor in human existence that goes against the grain of our egocentric mind. It originated in the democratic practices of ancient Greece, which replaced private dogma with public debate. Based on the heretical belief in an external world that can't be known intuitively, science replaced speculation and faith with reason and observation. Much of our progress, both political and technological, has come from accepting that truth can arise only from the competition of free and informed minds. It cannot be imposed by cannon or canon" (p. 205).
On Human Nature: Revised Edition
Imagining the Impossible: Magical, Scientific, and Religious Thinking in Children
July 8, 2021
Interesting and thought-provoking. Cromer clearly knows that what he’s proposing here is controversial because he writes so himself, many times. But it’s all worth thinking about.
I can clearly see why his position is uncomfortable for most, especially his suggestion at the end that high school be eliminated. He mocks himself for that, even, sarcastically. Because, really, what would teen shows be based on if high school ceases to exist?!
I love books that make me think outside of the box and outside of long-held assumptions and stuff I thought I knew. This is one of them.
And I like Cromer’s wit. He writes, about our idea of not being alone in the universe (for which he has a very logical - logical to my unscientific mind - explanation based on light-years and the speed, rhythm, and accidents of evolution): it’s just Bronze Age egocentrism in a space suit :)
I can clearly see why his position is uncomfortable for most, especially his suggestion at the end that high school be eliminated. He mocks himself for that, even, sarcastically. Because, really, what would teen shows be based on if high school ceases to exist?!
I love books that make me think outside of the box and outside of long-held assumptions and stuff I thought I knew. This is one of them.
And I like Cromer’s wit. He writes, about our idea of not being alone in the universe (for which he has a very logical - logical to my unscientific mind - explanation based on light-years and the speed, rhythm, and accidents of evolution): it’s just Bronze Age egocentrism in a space suit :)
June 30, 2021
Alan Cromer happened to release this book while I was working on the Ross Ice Sheet.
I was impressed, and I had this idea (about not being "common sense") long ago.
While a good physicist friend (a cosmologist with 2 book under his belt with a 3rd to be finished after his passing from an accident) sort of though Cromer was a bit of a blow hard (particle physicist).
I liked it even if it had an European slant as is common to cite Eastern mysticism to explain quantum particle interaction.
I purchased my copy, surprise! At the Exploratorium in San Francisco.
I was impressed, and I had this idea (about not being "common sense") long ago.
While a good physicist friend (a cosmologist with 2 book under his belt with a 3rd to be finished after his passing from an accident) sort of though Cromer was a bit of a blow hard (particle physicist).
I liked it even if it had an European slant as is common to cite Eastern mysticism to explain quantum particle interaction.
I purchased my copy, surprise! At the Exploratorium in San Francisco.
June 25, 2025
read this the day i flew out for my study abroad to greece. wish I didn't
April 26, 2017
As far as I can tell, this book doesn’t seem to be very well known. I can’t even remember how I came across it, but it certainly should be required reading for those interested in the nature and history of scientific thought, and those who pride themselves on rational thinking.
The thesis of Uncommon Sense: The Heretical Nature of Science is that science is not an inevitable progression of humankind, but in fact was a product of ancient Greece. The Greeks alone were the only people to develop the concepts of objectivity and deductive reasoning – both of which are necessary for science. This is due to science being an unnatural way of thinking that requires a specific set of circumstances, especially breaking from egocentric thinking, which was only accomplished by the Greeks.
Cromer explains why the great empires of India and China never developed scientific tradition and why it is commonly misconceived that they did. He says that despite all China’s technological advances, its 3000-year history is in fact evidence that objectivity and abstract deductive thinking are not an inevitable outcome from a literate, sophisticated civilisation.
Cromer traces historical accounts to draw some profound conclusions. For example, although all the early civilisations tracked the movements of the stars, it was only the Greeks that had the geometric insight to realise that the Earth was in roughly the same plane as the other planets, which is the first step away from the egocentric, earth-centred model and towards a heliocentric model. In contrast, the Babylonian and Chinese practices only ever used the movement of astronomical bodies to predict events on earth, or to search for and interpret irregularities as signs from heaven. In Cromer’s words:
Working his way up to the present, Cromer discusses the modern frontiers of science such as the drake equation, the future of space travel, and the limits to technological progress – whether the idea of unlimited progress is substantiated or merely a popular, but ill-considered belief. Plenty of food for thought here.
These first nine chapters are argued with an interesting and engaging narrative and tie in the thesis nicely. Cromer draws on his teaching background to end the book with a chapter outlining his ideas for improving science education in the US. Although this stand-alone section could have been an appendix, overall it didn’t detract from what was an insightful, penetrative read.
The thesis of Uncommon Sense: The Heretical Nature of Science is that science is not an inevitable progression of humankind, but in fact was a product of ancient Greece. The Greeks alone were the only people to develop the concepts of objectivity and deductive reasoning – both of which are necessary for science. This is due to science being an unnatural way of thinking that requires a specific set of circumstances, especially breaking from egocentric thinking, which was only accomplished by the Greeks.
Cromer explains why the great empires of India and China never developed scientific tradition and why it is commonly misconceived that they did. He says that despite all China’s technological advances, its 3000-year history is in fact evidence that objectivity and abstract deductive thinking are not an inevitable outcome from a literate, sophisticated civilisation.
Cromer traces historical accounts to draw some profound conclusions. For example, although all the early civilisations tracked the movements of the stars, it was only the Greeks that had the geometric insight to realise that the Earth was in roughly the same plane as the other planets, which is the first step away from the egocentric, earth-centred model and towards a heliocentric model. In contrast, the Babylonian and Chinese practices only ever used the movement of astronomical bodies to predict events on earth, or to search for and interpret irregularities as signs from heaven. In Cromer’s words:
“It is misleading to call someone an astronomer - no matter how carefully he observes the stars - if his sole purpose is fortune-telling.”
Working his way up to the present, Cromer discusses the modern frontiers of science such as the drake equation, the future of space travel, and the limits to technological progress – whether the idea of unlimited progress is substantiated or merely a popular, but ill-considered belief. Plenty of food for thought here.
These first nine chapters are argued with an interesting and engaging narrative and tie in the thesis nicely. Cromer draws on his teaching background to end the book with a chapter outlining his ideas for improving science education in the US. Although this stand-alone section could have been an appendix, overall it didn’t detract from what was an insightful, penetrative read.
Displaying 1 - 7 of 7 reviews