What do you think?
Rate this book
Правда и ложь в истории великих открытий
В истории науки множество мифов. Их герои, великие ученые, - настоящие рыцари чести, бескорыстные, благородные, жертвующие во имя науки всем, что у них есть. Но насколько мифы соответствуют истине? Известный английский историк науки Джон Уоллер рассказывает, основываясь на исследованиях современных ученых, о том, как на самом деле совершались великие открытия. Перед читателем разворачиваются человеческие драмы, полные борьбы идей, амбиций, честолюбий, и эти драмы не менее увлекательны, чем самые необыкновенные мифы.
- GenresScienceNonfictionHistory
416 pages, Hardcover
First published January 1, 2002
About the author
John Waller
8 books2 followersLibrarian Note: There is more than one author by this name in the Goodreads data base.
Associate Professor of the History of Medicine at the University of Michigan
Field: 18th century, 19th Century, Science/Medicine, Social
Region: Europe & Russia, United States
Associate Professor of the History of Medicine at the University of Michigan
Field: 18th century, 19th Century, Science/Medicine, Social
Region: Europe & Russia, United States
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 9 of 9 reviews
January 10, 2016
This is a tricky one to comment on - as I had shifting opinions on the author and his views.
As the title and cover blurb says its reveals the true histories behind some of the most iconic and famous scientists of our age. The facts and events that really happened and the people who got to shape history (and more importantly the history books) to their own favour.
This book really does prove that the history books are written by the winners and unlike the famous quote by Oliver Cromwell - you do not get to see warts and all.
So why my unease about the book - well a lot of it does seem like sour grapes - after all you cannot libel the dead and as many posthumous biographies show a good scandal sells, and really many of the principles discovered have been proven and built upon - it makes you wonder if the ends really do justify the means.
But then you have the fact that there are people (who I think rightfully so) should chronicle history correctly and unbiasedly - so does that mean that if something is unsavoury does that mean we have a right to edit it out.
And this is where my dilemma stands - is this really the literary equivalent of thrown stones at someones windows or are they setting the records straight while at the same time not diminishing the scale of their work has impacted our lives.
As the title and cover blurb says its reveals the true histories behind some of the most iconic and famous scientists of our age. The facts and events that really happened and the people who got to shape history (and more importantly the history books) to their own favour.
This book really does prove that the history books are written by the winners and unlike the famous quote by Oliver Cromwell - you do not get to see warts and all.
So why my unease about the book - well a lot of it does seem like sour grapes - after all you cannot libel the dead and as many posthumous biographies show a good scandal sells, and really many of the principles discovered have been proven and built upon - it makes you wonder if the ends really do justify the means.
But then you have the fact that there are people (who I think rightfully so) should chronicle history correctly and unbiasedly - so does that mean that if something is unsavoury does that mean we have a right to edit it out.
And this is where my dilemma stands - is this really the literary equivalent of thrown stones at someones windows or are they setting the records straight while at the same time not diminishing the scale of their work has impacted our lives.
September 18, 2026
3,75⭐️ pierwsza książka która dostałam do recenzji
March 1, 2019
The supposed stories of making up evidence are not borne out by recent studies. For example, on Eddington's confirmation of gravity bending light during a solar eclipse:
https://www.nature.com/news/2007/0709...
https://www.nature.com/news/2007/0709...
December 15, 2015
Works best as a basic introduction to the history of science.
Say you've taken the regular science classes in high school or college; you've heard some of the stories behind the ideas--Gregor Mendel or Darwin or Joseph Lister; or Pasteur; or Arthur Eddington. They are potted histories that show how these geniuses proved one idea or another beyond a shadow of a doubt.
This book will tell you, as Paul Harvey would say, the rest of the story: what historians of science really know about the disproof of spontaneous generation, the discovery of the electron, the use of solar eclipses to prove Einstein's theory of general relativity; Frederick Taylor's scientific management; John Snow's work on epidemiology and cholera; Gregor Mendel's ideas about genetics; Joseph Lister's discovery of antiseptic surgery; what Darwin really thought; if science and religion were really at war during the 19th century; and the discoveries of insulin and antibiotics.
The general overview is--the story is more complicated than you learned. That in some cases scientists massaged numbers of dismissed controverting data in the service of promoting their ideas: Pasteur's experiments didn't really disprove spontaneous generation (the world would have to wait for better research by Germans); Robert Milikan's data was less than definitive proof of the electron, and so on.
Waller makes the point that in many cases this massaging wasn't bad science--obviously outlying data is often thrown out. Indeed, part of what he wants to show us is the the idealized notion of the "scientific method"--which isn't a unitary thing at all--doesn't stand up. Nobody follows it exactly. Science is messier than that.
The second section looks not at scientists burnishing their data, but their reputations (and historians and other commentators who have similarly burnished the reputations of particular authors). His point here is that a real historical understanding of the context of scientific discovery shows that it is messy, incomplete, and prompted along the way by many others, who often don't get credit. (The way he structures these stories, it is often the Germans who didn't get appropriate credit--a kind of shadow to the book.) Sometimes, as in the case of Joseph Lister and Charles Best, credit is wrongly attributed because one particular scientist rewrites the history of his own work, or elbows out of remembrance the work of others. Sometimes it is later scientists who are looking for a founding father who reinterpret the original work in a weird way--that was the case of Gregor Mendel. Lauded as the father of classical genetics, he wasn't interested in inheritance at all, but hybridity. Later scientists, though, who were interested in transmission genetics resurrected his work. A similar story is told about Darwin, who was a much more complex thinker than his interpreters often allowed.
The most complicated case is Huxley, who did promote himself and his accomplishments beyond what they really did, and who had supporters who dismissed his opponents as imbeciles. But what was really going on was less than a battle between theology and science--as it has so often been portrayed--but a professional battle: the middle-class scientists were trying to get themselves into professional positions so often held by those with a clerical background.
None of these stories should be surprising to anyone with even the slightest experience in the history of science. Indeed, most of the cases are classic ones, based on research that predates Waller's back by one to three decades: this is a tertiary source for people who don't know much about the real history of science, how it works, and what it has discovered since the 1970s. The references are as expected--Geison on Pasteur, Olby on Mendel, etc., etc. There were only three chapters here that I knew nothing about going into the book, and they didn't surprise me, just confirmed the overall thrust of the thesis.
So, the book is fine, a fair introduction that knocks the scientific method from its pedestal--something historians of science have been doing for decades but still isn't really appreciated widely, and so is worthwhile for its attempts to consolidate so many different stories and reach out for a broader audience.
Say you've taken the regular science classes in high school or college; you've heard some of the stories behind the ideas--Gregor Mendel or Darwin or Joseph Lister; or Pasteur; or Arthur Eddington. They are potted histories that show how these geniuses proved one idea or another beyond a shadow of a doubt.
This book will tell you, as Paul Harvey would say, the rest of the story: what historians of science really know about the disproof of spontaneous generation, the discovery of the electron, the use of solar eclipses to prove Einstein's theory of general relativity; Frederick Taylor's scientific management; John Snow's work on epidemiology and cholera; Gregor Mendel's ideas about genetics; Joseph Lister's discovery of antiseptic surgery; what Darwin really thought; if science and religion were really at war during the 19th century; and the discoveries of insulin and antibiotics.
The general overview is--the story is more complicated than you learned. That in some cases scientists massaged numbers of dismissed controverting data in the service of promoting their ideas: Pasteur's experiments didn't really disprove spontaneous generation (the world would have to wait for better research by Germans); Robert Milikan's data was less than definitive proof of the electron, and so on.
Waller makes the point that in many cases this massaging wasn't bad science--obviously outlying data is often thrown out. Indeed, part of what he wants to show us is the the idealized notion of the "scientific method"--which isn't a unitary thing at all--doesn't stand up. Nobody follows it exactly. Science is messier than that.
The second section looks not at scientists burnishing their data, but their reputations (and historians and other commentators who have similarly burnished the reputations of particular authors). His point here is that a real historical understanding of the context of scientific discovery shows that it is messy, incomplete, and prompted along the way by many others, who often don't get credit. (The way he structures these stories, it is often the Germans who didn't get appropriate credit--a kind of shadow to the book.) Sometimes, as in the case of Joseph Lister and Charles Best, credit is wrongly attributed because one particular scientist rewrites the history of his own work, or elbows out of remembrance the work of others. Sometimes it is later scientists who are looking for a founding father who reinterpret the original work in a weird way--that was the case of Gregor Mendel. Lauded as the father of classical genetics, he wasn't interested in inheritance at all, but hybridity. Later scientists, though, who were interested in transmission genetics resurrected his work. A similar story is told about Darwin, who was a much more complex thinker than his interpreters often allowed.
The most complicated case is Huxley, who did promote himself and his accomplishments beyond what they really did, and who had supporters who dismissed his opponents as imbeciles. But what was really going on was less than a battle between theology and science--as it has so often been portrayed--but a professional battle: the middle-class scientists were trying to get themselves into professional positions so often held by those with a clerical background.
None of these stories should be surprising to anyone with even the slightest experience in the history of science. Indeed, most of the cases are classic ones, based on research that predates Waller's back by one to three decades: this is a tertiary source for people who don't know much about the real history of science, how it works, and what it has discovered since the 1970s. The references are as expected--Geison on Pasteur, Olby on Mendel, etc., etc. There were only three chapters here that I knew nothing about going into the book, and they didn't surprise me, just confirmed the overall thrust of the thesis.
So, the book is fine, a fair introduction that knocks the scientific method from its pedestal--something historians of science have been doing for decades but still isn't really appreciated widely, and so is worthwhile for its attempts to consolidate so many different stories and reach out for a broader audience.
December 4, 2014
An excellent book of not only history of science but philosophy of science. What impresses me most about Waller's writing, though, is how accessible he makes even the fairly complex scientific concepts. The book makes for an excellent introduction to some of the issues in the history and philosophy of science while requiring only modest scientific acumen, thanks to the author's skill. My only complaint is that Waller is a bit too fond of wordplay, to the point that occasionally one runs across a sentence that not only elicits a groan but one that actively seems awkward. Still, a book that is lucid, illuminating, and well-written; a combination worth recommending.
April 14, 2012
Fantastic book - feels like it was written specifically for me.
Essential reading for any self-professed scientist or sceptic. Waller reaffirms the validity of the scientific method whilst acknowledging that individual scientists are just as human as the next person with the capacity to lie, cheat and exaggerate for egoistic purposes. The book also touches upon the philosophy of history as well as religion and its relationship to science.
August 19, 2010
This and "a short history of nearly everything" made sense into a lot of history of inventors and scientists. I'm torn between telling this version of history or the skimmed-down-and-more-straight-to-the-positive-value history for my children. Maybe the heavy conflict should fall in later when they can process it, but mine came a little late that I'd like.
July 15, 2012
Very good book on the real history of science with warts and all. Demolishes many standard hero myths of scientific progress and highlights the role played by the footsoldiers of science as well the role of those less self-centered than the hero geniuses of usual stories. Must read for anyone interested on the history of science.
December 26, 2012
Есть пара занятных мест, но на такую тему, прямо скажем, можно было бы и поживее написать...((
Displaying 1 - 9 of 9 reviews