Horizons: The Global Origins of Modern Science

by James Poskett

“A radical retelling… Poskett deftly blends the achievements of little-known figures into the wider history of science… The book brims with clarity.”— Financial Times The history of science as it has never been told a tale of outsiders and unsung heroes from far beyond the Western canon that most of us are taught. When we think about the origins of modern science we usually begin in Europe. We remember the great minds of Nicolaus Copernicus, Isaac Newton, Charles Darwin, and Albert Einstein. But the history of science is not, and has never been, a uniquely European endeavor. Copernicus relied on mathematical techniques that came from Arabic and Persian texts. Newton’s laws of motion used astronomical observations made in Asia and Africa. When Darwin was writing  On the Origin of Species,  he consulted a sixteenth-century Chinese encyclopedia. And when Einstein studied quantum mechanics, he was inspired by the Bengali physicist, Satyendra Nath Bose. Horizons is the history of science as it has never been told before, uncovering its unsung heroes and revealing that the most important scientific breakthroughs have come from the exchange of ideas from different cultures around the world. In this ambitious, revelatory history, James Poskett recasts the history of science, uncovering the vital contributions that scientists in Africa, America, Asia, and the Pacific have made to this global story.

Genres: Science, History, Nonfiction, History Of Science, Ebooks, Popular Science, Space

464 pages, Hardcover

First published March 22, 2022

Reviews

[Simona B · Rating 1 out of 5]

1.5

Sloppy in its use of secondary sources, sloppily written, and even more sloppily conceived and argued. The reviews that say that the referencing of secondary literature is poorly and imprecisely done and that the biographical/historical sketches presented in the book fail to cohere into a clear narrative are, in my opinion, definitely onto something; but there are also worse and more nuanced issues.

First, the positives. The book's scope is admiringly broad, and as someone that, from time to time, writes professionally in areas adjacent to the history and philosophy of science, I'll definitely be returning to this book in the future for historical references and to check out the bibliographical sources listed, which are abundant but never engaged with directly or properly discussed, which is an important requisite for academic writing (the author is a professor at Warwick), including more popular forms of nonfictional writing. What the author does here, instead, is set up a strawman conception of the existing history of science as unthinkingly Eurocentric and based on the myth of the lone genius - and that's the total extent of the book's explicit engagement with previous scholarship.

I've already moved away from the positives without meaning to. (Although, honestly, that's actually it.) So I'll just go to the point and say that, in general, the tone of the book seemed extremely biased and partisan to me, as if the author had reached his conclusion even before reviewing the evidence. I grew particularly uneasy when in the Introduction, the author tells us that we need "a new history of modern science... more suited to the times in which we live." What does it mean that we need to remake history in ways that are "more suited" to contemporaneity? Wouldn't you want instead your historical knowledge to grow more and more accurate, rather than more reflective of your own or your society's moral and political values? This kind of statement is always a huge alarm bell for me.

One of the book's most significant problems is that Poskett's thesis in favour of a global history of science (which I agree is a worthy pursuit) relies on portraying as controversial things that are fully accepted in the contemporary state of the subject, as well as on conflating two different arguments which we might do well to keep separate, namely 1. that the opening up of the European world since the age of explorations onwards contributed to the emergence of modern science, and 2. that modern science or at least the scientific attitude was also developed at the same time if not earlier elsewhere than Europe. Point 1 is absolutely not controversial, and I urge you to read Wootton's wonderfully erudite and engaging The Invention of Science in that respect (which reminds me, if you have any recommendations - not just on early modern but in any temporal or conceptual area of the history of science, feel free to mention your titles!). Point 2, on the other hand, very much depends on what you mean by science. If we stick to a loose conception of materialist and rationalist explanations of natural phenomena, of course it's true - Carlo Rovelli has a lovely little book on Anaximander's naturalism, and Meera Nanda in Prophets Facing Backward discusses studies of early Indian materialism. But if you mean "modern science" (which is usually taken to encompass a modern scientific community and system of circulating information, counter-check mechanisms on scientific results, strict and repeatable experimentation, and a widespread understanding of science as a rigorously secular enterprise, just to mention a few things), which is the expression that Poskett uses again and again, then the answer must be a resounding no, and I'm honestly not sure what the championing of the opposite thesis would do to advance the cause of more diversity in modern scientific practice.

The author insists that "the future of science depends on finding a way between the twin forces of globalization and nationalism," for which goal we need to "[get] the history [of science] right," and part of this getting the story right consists, apparently, in denouncing as "false" the "damaging" "myth that modern science was invented in Europe." I think this position is problematic or at least ambiguous in several respects, but what is perhaps the most obvious problem is that I seriously doubt that actual scientists would care either way whether the history of science is rewritten to include more diversity or not. In short, in the list of ways we could devise to make contemporary science more inclusive, this historiographical intervention would fall right to the bottom for me, especially when you consider how philosophers of science bemoan that scientists don't take the work of the philosophy of science seriously, to the point of publicly calling it useless.

Secondly, as I have mentioned, the author espouses the above thesis without ever (seriously, not in a single line) engaging in a minimum of critical reflection on what science is and what its theoretical/philosophical foundations are or should be. This leads to frankly outrageous statements such as the claim, in Chapter 5, that Darwin was not nearly as innovative a thinker as Eurocentrist historians claim he was, because ideas about the possibility of species evolution were actually common at the time he was writing On the Origin of Species. I'm not sure about common, but ideas from many fronts were indeed converging on evolution in that moment - the proof of the pudding being Alfred Russell Wallace. But Poskett doesn't have Wallace in mind, no. No, one of his proofs of Darwin's unoriginality is instead an early 19th-century Kyoto-based philosopher who, "[i]nspired by Buddhist teachings... described how the Earth itself had evolved from a combination of fire and water," followed by "the development of plant and animal life." I'm flabbergasted that not one academic reviewer or editor thought to point out to the author that there is a difference between philosophy and science. But apparently it's now considered perfectly serious and reliable scholarship to insist that "Darwin was certainly important" (how generous!) "but" actually, "there was nothing new about [the theory of evolution]"; instead, "[w]hat made Darwinism so appealing at the time was the idea of a 'struggle for existence'" - which smacks so terribly of all conceivable kinds of imperialist attitudes, of course!

The book presents other cases in which the achievements of the great names of modern science are similarly downplayed. At the end of Chapter 6, we are told that "even the famous 'Maxwell's equations' [notice the scare quotes]... were first developed, not by Maxwell, but by a telegraph engineer looking for a quicker way to do his calculations." This engineer's name is not mentioned (a common occurrence in this book; the Japanese philosopher mentioned above is never named either), and it's ambiguous whether "his" in this sentence refers to Maxwell or said engineer, so that this casual remark actually makes you think (as even I did for a second) that Maxwell somehow stole the merit for his equations from this poor engineer. Then I realized that it was simply a reference to Oliver Heaviside's synthesis of the numerous equations devised by Maxwell into the four still in use today. But since this was a work entirely based on Maxwell's theory, you see that there is a difference between this more neutral formulation and saying that Maxwell wasn't even the one to come up with the equations.

To conclude, let me return very briefly to Chapter 1 as another example of what I mean when I say that Poskett indiscriminately discusses points 1 and 2 as I've described them above without distinction, with the result that his argument comes off as rather far-fetched and insubstantial, which for me is ultimately the book's all-encompassing shortcoming. In fact, this chapter alone is enough to show that the book is mostly ideologically motivated, and rooted in research and argument only to the extent that these help get the ideological point across. Here, the author mentions how the discovery of a whole range of new animals and plants in the Americas contributed to the realization that ancient Greek texts didn't possess all the knowledge in the world as it was previously believed, which is uncontestable (and again, not a new argument). But then he repeatedly segues into the conclusion that European as well as mestizo or Indigeneous "explorers and missionaries," "fascinated by Aztec and Inca ideas... produced new works of natural history, medicine, and geography," and that Aztec codices, "many of which were destroyed in the sixteenth century by Catholic missionaries... formed the basis of some of the most important works of early modern science produced in Europe." It would indeed have been exceedingly useful if the author had given even just one example of what these "most important works" of European early modern science were, and what the Aztec influence on them consists in. I would have also appreciated some clarification on what are the "Aztec and Inca ideas," as opposed to merely knowledge of local flora and fauna or characteristic illustration styles, that influenced so profoundly European pre-scientific thought. Such paucity of details and evidence makes nearly all the book's bombastic claims sound needlessly inflated. "In the sixteenth century, a new generation of thinkers [I believe he means those influenced by these "Aztec ideas"?]... developed an environmental theory, not just of disease, but of human nature itself." What is this theory? What does it say? Where is it explained or discussed, in what books? What influence did it have? Or again, "the influence of Aztec natural history is still with us" today... why? "The words 'tomato' and 'chocolate' are both derived from Nahuatl. The same is true of many other New Worlds plants and animals." And this section of the chapter literally ends a few lines later, so this is actually the substance of the evidence adduced to ground this claim.

I'm convinced that tracing the influence of the many and rich cultures discussed in this book (and even of those that escaped even this ambitious survey) on early modern and subsequent pre-scientific and properly scientific European thought is both a possible and a stimulating enterprise (and I'm guessing some of the sources in Poskett's bibliography do just that). However, the evidence presented here, if you're generous enough not to consider it nonexistent, is nowhere rich, solid, or substantial enough to justify the claim that the origins of modern science in the European world are "a myth," as the author says in the very first page. The lack of nuance in the distinction of religious, philosophical, and scientific thought, or of any discussion concerning factual knowledge as something that is philosophically quite distinct from the scientific attitude broadly construed (see my earlier remarks on the distinctiveness of what we call "modern science"), only aggravates the problem. And so my search for a scholarly, solid history of global science and scientific thought continues.

[Alfred Holmes · Rating 4 out of 5]

This is more of a sequence of short historical biographies, rather than a global history of science. Poskett explains that he feels that this is the best way to tell the story, which is definitely worth reading. In hindsight the main thesis is fairly obvious: if different people are doing similar science in different places then they invariably will interact in some way. As a corollary, the development of science is dependent on geopolitics and geopolitical aims. Similarly, having thought about it, the entangling of the development of science with global history is inevitable. Reading the book makes you think about this, and is an interesting perspective.

Unfortunately, this focus on the individual means that a sense of what is understood at different points is missing. It would have been nice to understand more how the specific individuals written about viewed the world and their science, but this would perhaps be a different book. At some points it would also have been nice to get more scientific detail, particularly with Newton - I still don’t know what he actually did. (What does it mean to discover / invent calculus?)

Relating to Darwin’s ideas and the development of quantum mechanics and relativity, there is discussion on how these ideas then serve as inspiration for political ones - social Darwinism and various revolutions in the 20th century. There is no discussion on the converse to this: political ideas influencing scientific thought (eg Kuhn). This would maybe require a detailed understanding of the science being developed. There is discussion about why some research is taking place (e.g. to understand wildlife in a new territory) but not whether politics influences the questions asked, or the conclusions.

[Steve · Rating 4 out of 5]

I enjoyed this book. It provides a different, very interesting perspective on the history of science. The book is well-written and I liked the author's conversational tone. Although I am not sure how well the book supported the idea of the interconnectedness of science, it was fun to learn about the social and scientific aspects of nations that don’t typically make it into most history of science books. The part of the book I liked a little less was the history of evolution. I would have liked to have seen a little more about Alfred Russel Wallace. There was also too much content on social Darwinism. Nonetheless, this is a book well worth reading and I recommend it for anyone interested in the history of science. Thank you to Netgalley and Mariner Books for the advance reader copy.

[Mansoor · Rating 1 out of 5]

The author is utterly deluded.

[Brian Hanson · Rating 2 out of 5]

Fashionable revisionism: Europe's scientific debt to other, including Islamic, parts of the world. Implications of colonialism etc. You get the picture.

[Floris · Rating 3 out of 5]

I have to give Poskett credit for the ambition of this book. In trying to rewrite the history of science from a global perspective, he is doing what historians of science have been trying to do collectively for over a decade. It is their work that he builds on with Horizons (showing that he has an excellent command of the literature), essentially tying together these place- or region-specific studies into an overarching structure that closely resembles but inverts the focus of your typical “Scientific Revolution” style narratives. This is both where the book greatest strength lies, and is greatest weakness. On the one hand, I think Horizons could serve as an excellent companion for how to read against those traditional kinds of histories of science, which foreground European and white-American intellectuals, working on topics and problems that are very context-dependent. In that sense the book would be good to read alongside those older narratives, because the major themes are similar, yet who is foregrounded is drastically different.

However, the fact that those themes are similar points to this work’s biggest flaw, in my opinion. Poskett had an opportunity with this new, “global” history of science to recast the major story beats in the history of modern science. Instead, he reverts to the same old, same old: the discovery of the New World is admittedly somewhat of a novel place to start, but afterwards we see the familiar figures of Newton, Darwin, Einstein, as well as lovely Euro-centric themes like the industrial revolution and ideologies like fascism and communism. It is unfortunate that his story can’t seem to get away from these motifs (or at least explain why they are unavoidable, if that is the case). It bleeds into his analysis as well, as many of the non-European actors are written about as being in contact with, under the patronage of, or otherwise connected to these titans of Western science. At best, this makes the book read like an addition (as opposed to an alternative) to existing long-term histories of science. At worst, it repackages those same histories under the thin veil of diversity. It’s a shame, because it undermines the central premise of Poskett’s work, namely that new kinds of stories are necessary. The many case studies he refers to do go some way to creating those new stories. But I couldn’t shake the feeling that they still relied on an assumption of Western dominance (or normativity). For example, the frequent reference to certain non-Western scientists receiving Nobel Prizes in the 20th century only accentuates the impression that Western scientific communities must determine the quality of their work. Poskett does not address the fact that these individuals were largely the exceptions, and that the award process favoured (and still does) well-established and well-connected researchers – most likely those in Western institutions. Of course, since Poskett can’t be an expert on all of these areas of science, he relies a lot on secondary literature. This is fine. Indeed, I might say it's the only way you could write a book like this. But the literature he does use is overwhelming English, which seems like a huge missed opportunity for this new “global” history of science.

There was also a questionable style decision in the way each chapter or sub-chapter started. The little vignettes Poskett used felt a bit formulaic, and less authentic when you realise we can’t actually know whether the subject felt the fear or awe or anger as we are told he or she did. That kind of emotional insight into a character feels more at home in fiction. I get that here they are meant to humanise the person, maybe provide a sideways insight into their motivations. But especially since the rest of the section would mostly be strictly factual anyway (until the next section came, in which case you’d get another vignette), these passages just didn’t click for me. I’m guessing this is mainly a poor decision by the editor.

The Epilogue looks at three major scientific trends (AI, space exploration, climate science), and how scientists and politicians will have to confront the forces of nationalism and globalization. Although I found the insistence on the “new Cold War” between the USA and China a bit strange to end this book with, I did think he included some nice points to make his overall narrative relevant for the present-day (e.g. his cool example of a South American climate scientist combining scientific methodologies and knowledge with local knowledge (interviews) to create flood maps (367)).

I don’t want to be too harsh on a historian of science being ambitious with the scope and aims of their book. If this book inspires many more scholars to engage with the global history of science, perhaps even to attempt their own – improved – overviews like this one, then that can only be a good thing. It’s mainly for that reason that I want to mark this book with 3 stars, with the huge asterisk that it has some serious limitations.

[Alberto Illán Oviedo · Rating 1 out of 5]

‘Horizontes: Una historia global de la ciencia’, de James Poskett, no dice la verdad. No es una historia global de la ciencia, en ningún momento se plantea como tal, sino como una enmienda a la totalidad según criterios actuales de diversidad, inclusión, derechos sociales e integración. Este libro se publico en 2022, en el momento en que la revisión de la historia según estos criterios estaba en boga y, en este sentido, este libro tiene toda la justificación del mundo, pero eso no implica que sea correcto, sino que satisface cierta ‘necesidad intelectual’ de los colectivos revisionistas.

Creo que la idea de hacer una historia global, una historia que recopile fuentes distintas donde fundamentar mejor descubrimientos, leyes y principios científicos, donde se incluyeran las aportaciones de personas o colectivos de distintos pueblos, culturas, civilizaciones que dieron lugar a esa gran institución humana que es la ciencia y el método científico es enriquecedora y podría ayudar a entender mejor que la ciencia es un esfuerzo colectivo, donde los descubrimientos de unos, por muy famosos e importantes que sean, se basan en la acumulación de la información, en la gestación del conocimiento y en compartir esta información para seguir avanzando.

Sin embargo, el autor salta de una anécdota a otra, siempre y cuando estas ratifiquen sus tesis, sin la continuidad que requeriría una historia global de la ciencia, de forma que toda esta ‘magna’ obra queda reducida a un esperpento sesgado del que Poskett no termina de salir en ningún momento, dando la sensación de que su labor consiste en denigrar más a unos que aportar lo de los otros.

Por poner un ejemplo, denuncia mucho el deleznable uso de la esclavitud en el avance científico, pero sólo el de aquellos países/civilizaciones/imperios a los que se le achaca según este revisionismo actual, obviando o minimizando este mismo hecho en otros a los que se supone que han sido invisibilizados, sin olvidar que, en esos siglos, la esclavitud era algo, como poco, aceptado y que pocos se oponían a ella. En otros casos, incluso parece tener simpatía por dictadores o autócratas y la labor de estos en el devenir científico. Otras veces, hace interpretaciones de hechos que chocan con las aceptadas, pero sin aportar argumentos que refuercen este cambio de criterio, como si todo lo escrito hasta ese momento estuviera equivocado y sólo la reinterpretación fuera la correcta.

En definitiva, creo que es una oportunidad perdida de una obra que podría haber sido poderosa y muy interesante, pero que se queda en pasquín.

[Amelia · Rating 4 out of 5]

The one main thing I didn't really like about this book was that all the notes were at the end of the book. I didn't actually end up reading any of them like I usually do because I just did not have the energy to flip to the back of the book and find the right number every time there was a note.

[Shoshi · Rating 2 out of 5]

Biggest BBC History review flop since The Gun, the Ship, and the Pen. The scope of this survey work is VERY broad, which CAN be doable. Sadly through a combination of not definining terms (what really is "science" in 1400, is it the same everywhere, did that def change in 1700? 1900? What is the "Scientific Revolution"? for ex), really poor use of sources or use of a rabge of sources this book serves only to show where certain pursuits we now consider science where being conducted.
He at times glosses so vague he sounds like he's sympathizing with autocrats.

This was all particularly grating as I studied these topics in college with Professors who were really careful about examining what terms we are using and relative bias in review of materials. His persistent statments about the rightness or wronggness of a scientific theory or fact got grating - with some it's what we believe to be right now but further tests or observations may disprove.

Personal pet peeve ' he talks about evolution by adaptation rather than hereditary traits and NEVER mentions Lamarck! You don't have to agree but all we get is St Hilaire and Cuvier from the French side in this period!?! Lamarck Lamarck Lamarck!

PLEASE do not make this your entre into History of Science. History of science study benefits from a global view - I hope someone else is working on a better work.

[Oscar Pinto · Rating 5 out of 5]

Horizons is a fascinating book about the untold origins and profound global influences on Western science and scientists. It is painstakingly researched, historically and geographically comprehensive, and consistently engaging. Well worth reading!

[John Parker · Rating 1 out of 5]

It is truly ridiculous how this book was able to even be published. Borderline plagiarism and against all ethics of historical book writing. Notable grave mistakes include not properly citing works making it extremely difficult to even trace back certain aspects of the book - such as when other books are cited. No attempt is made in this work to have accountability by doing so.

In addition to the extreme exaggerations and random connections within this book, I not only can not recommend it, but I must also recommend that Poskett's works be further analyzed for academic dishonesty.

This book attempts to make connections where there are none. In essence, Poskett attempts to draw from other sources with a lack of critical thinking skills.

The sources are skewed to push a narrative that could not be more incorrect. I understand the attempt Poskett is trying to make, however, Poskett completely missed the mark.

While not an example from his book, to illustrate how ridiculous his points are take this (fake) example.

"If it were not for the defeat of Harold at the Battle of Hastings, Sausage rolls may have never been invented." That is seriously how outlandish Pockett's points are.

Poskett's notes in the "Notes" section are hilarious as well "Given the scope of this book, references are restricted to works on which I directly relied in the writing. For a similar reason, I have kept points of discussion in the notes to an absolute minimum."

I do not think Poskett has any idea how historical writing works as he lacks the ability to maintain accountability for his sources. I suggest in Poskett's further works he researches how to properly cite sources. As the way Poskett has improperly cited them causes concern and difficulty when attempting to find the source. That's the whole point of a standard for citations Poskett, it allows for accountability.

I would give it 0/5 stars if possible. The confidently incorrect points Pockett made could be ignored if he knew how to properly cite sources. However, he clearly slept in instead of showing up for class that day.

[S · Rating 3 out of 5]

Sketchy and in many cases far-fetched. If the author had a goal of proving the global origins of science, the first two parts of the book seem to be showing directly the opposite.

It's understandable how European colonization of other continents or Ottoman takeover of Constantinople (not Istanbul as the book says) has triggered the flow of knowledge necessary for scientific breakthroughs of the Enlightenment age, but I think the author uses a very broad concept of what science is.
Does practicing herbal medicine constitute for science? Or navigating in the ocean by stars? Or cataloguing plants and animals by their habitats? All these examples do not imply that the same methods would work in unfamiliar environments, nor that there was an initial aim to find the underlying reasons for them.

In this regard, the last two parts are much more logical: we can follow how scattered ideas were born in various parts of the world in order to merge into well-known theories. However, too often do these stories end at the most interesting moments, prompting some further reading elsewhere.

[Kat · Rating 3 out of 5]

This one is hard for me to review.
The main thesis in here is that the science rarely, if ever, belongs to a single person/nation/country/religion etc. The truth is that the ideas, resources and people have always been travelling and influencing others elsewhere. We wouldn´t be where we are today if every country or nation would have lived in total isolation.
All of this is true, no need to argue with it.
The thing is the author is deperately proving and explaining his thesis by bombarding his readers with an enormous amount of details... it simply becomes overwhelming and... sorry to say... boring. And as for myself, as a person who likes to read about history and science, I haven´t found in this book anything new.
However, I do appreciate the author´s hard work and knowledge, this is an incredibly detailed book.

[Konstantin Ivanov · Rating 2 out of 5]

Could not finish. The tone of the book was just exhausting. It seemed like half the book was busy building some kind of a racist straw man out of me so that when it actually had something interesting to say it would assume a demeaning, pearl-clutching tone as if to say " YOU SEE, YOU SEE... You racist f**k, Isaac Newton could not have simply come up with these observations himself, it's all because of the legacy of slavery that he was DIRECTLY involved in". And this is quite sad since I support the message that the book intends to tell that science is a collaborative effort between a diverse subset of generations and cultures but it is not written for me as much as it seems to be written for the Grand Wizard of the KKK.

[Meg Briers · Rating 3 out of 5]

i won't be too wordy because it turns out floris has written a review that captured the majority of my thoughts much more elegantly than i will ever be able to so please read that instead

positives:
- the scope, that must have taken SOME work and i highly respect the wide variety of sources, sciences and countries covered
- prompting historians of science to stop focusing so much on the typical subjects and place their work in broader collaborative contexts (i mean potentially questionable it took this long)
- highly highly readable, hello non hps friends this will be recommended to you

negatives:
- the anecdotes that preceded a new section, because there is no way the sources captured what was used to introduce characters
- lack of acknowledgement/discussion of difficulties with getting these stories told re archive material
- the centering of stories of labour and collaboration around the "classic" key moments/discoveries
- final section was really fun but felt a tiny bit rushed

[Andres Felipe Contreras Buitrago · Rating 5 out of 5]

Tenía mucha expectativa por este libro, y la verdad es que las cumplió. Es de esas lectura envolventes, que se puede pasar páginas y no darse cuenta, nada denso el libro, es claro con sus ideas, por otra parte, el mencionar como países de África, América Latina y Asia contribuyeron a la ciencia es un gran cierto, lo más criticable del libro es que de se siente que pudo haber abarcado más cosas, ser más ambicioso, aunque eso lo deja claro el autor en la introducción.

En la introducción el autor desmiente la idea de que la ciencia es un producto europeo, elaborado por pocas personas, por el contrario, fue algo donde muchas personas y lugares ayudaron, fue más bien un intercambio cultural global, donde fue importante las redes comerciales y religiosas.

En el primer capítulo es sobre el nuevo mundo, se observa un imperio azteca muy avanzado con médicos, centros de educación y jardines botánicos, con la llegada de los españoles estos empezaron a describir las plantas y animales del nuevo mundo, acá fueron importantes los nativos locales, porqué no había en los autores clásicos información sobre este nuevo lugar, es así que se inició una crítica hacia a estos autores que por años fueron los referentes en el conocimiento. También hay debates sobre la humanidad de estos nativos. Por otra parte, los españoles llevaron a cabo un gran proceso cartográfico, en el que los indígenas nuevamente fueron fundamentales, llegando así a elaborar impresionantes mapas, habían cuestionarios para rellenar con información. Se da paso así a un conocimiento centrado en la experiencia.

En el segundo capítulo es sobre la astrología que va unida a la astronomía y es muy importante para los gobernantes terrenales, por ello la construcción de observatorios y tablillas astronómicas como en el imperio tiburida. En el Islam, la luna y el astrolabio eran importantes, fueron los árabes los que recuperaron la obra de Ptolomeo, haciéndolo críticas, el imperio turco siguió con ese interés en la ciencia construyendo un observatorio y usando relojes mecánicos para las observaciones. Observatorios también construidos por los indios mongoles con un gran reloj solar. En el mundo chino, la llegada de jesuítas fue importante para mejorar el calendario que era lunisolar. Por su parte Copérnico, su grandes aportes debieron mucho a pensadores musulmanes previos a él, donde la llegada de textos clásicos a Italia fue otro factor importante. Las rutas que habían, son importantes para ciencia.

El tercer capítulo versa en como Newton hizo sus grandes aportes gracias a que viajeros antes de él hicieron observaciones importantes, en barcos llenos de esclavos, la cuestión es que habían cuestiones aún no resueltas de la teoría de él, eso fue solucionado en gran parte por nativos, por un lado en mirar cómo era la forma de la tierra, el trabajo de indios peruanos fue importante, inclusive el trazo de líneas, ya lo habían hecho estos antes, como las líneas de Nasca. Por su parte en los viajes de James Cook, los polinesios, y su gran capacidad de navegación por el océano Pacífico, mirando las marea fue fundamental, hacer mapas en cuadrículas también era novedoso, los esquimales en el polo norte, fueron decisivos para que los rusos llegarán a Alaska, estos nativos sabían ubicarse gracias a la nieve. Vemos aquí que los indígenas fueron importantes para la ciencia.

El cuarto capítulo, vemos cómo los esclavos africanos sabían las propiedades medicinales de muchas plantas como para tratar la malaria, curar dolencias o inducir el aborto, en otros lugares de las indias orientales los nativos eran importantes para los mismos efectos, ayudaron a la descripciones de plantas y a la creación de jardines botánicos, que en últimas dieron nacimiento a la clasificación taxonómica usada hoy día. El interés por el té también llevo a buscar a describir esta planta, pero los chinos también querían llevar a cabo descripciones de plantas y animales, cosa que lograron, igual que los japoneses que gracias a los holandeses lo llevaron a cabo, mostrando así los especímenes que habitaban solo en esta Isla. El conocimiento se ve impulsado por los imperios y el interés comercial de buscar nuevas plantas para la venta.

El capítulo cinco es sobre la teoría de la evolución, donde antes que Darwin ya se habían establecido ideas sobre la evolución de las especies como los investigadores franceses que fueron junto a Napoleón a Egipto. Lugares como Argentina, gracias a su gran colección de fósiles ayudaron a mostrar este lugar como uno relacionado con la teoría de la evolución, que justificó la conquista de nativos al sur, en Rusia está teoría fue ampliada como el impacto del medio ambiente en las especies, la ecología y el descubrimiento de los fagocitos. En asia, gracias a su religión y cultura, ya había una idea sobre la evolución, lo novedoso es la lucha por el más apto, que llevó a guerras y expansiones de un Japón que buscaba modernizarse con la restauración meiji.

El capítulo seis, sobre la nueva industria y ciencia, es mostrada la feria mundial de París, en el que asisten científicos de todo el mundo, muestra de una ciencia global. En Rusia Mendeleiev hace su gran aportación de la tabla periódica, y hace que la ciencia este relacionada con el zar y la economía, se desarrolla pólvora sin humo y avances en la ondas de radio. En Turquía se lleva a cabo la construcción de líneas telegráficas por todo el imperio además de una investigación sobre un terremoto, en Japón luego de que se produjera uno, se investigó como estos afectan el campo magnético de la tierra, en este lugar también se llevaron a cabo las primeras investigaciones sobre los átomos. En india, hay descubrimiento sobre los nitratos importantes para la industria india, este conocimiento inspirado en textos clásicos del sánscrito. Vemos una ciencia a la orden de las naciones.

El capítulo siete es sobre la física, Einstein es el más importante físico que viajo mucho y aprendió de otros físicos alrededor del mundo. En la Urss habia una gran inversión en la ciencia, muchos científicos fueron leales a la revolución, pero con el terror de Stalin, varios científicos desaparecieron, los que quedaron, hicieron grandes avances en la física como en los super fluidos como el Helio o en las partículas. En China, hay grandes inversiones en ciencias luego de la revolución, en el que se llega al punto de descubrir los positrones, en el país vecino, Japón, las investigaciones en centros de investigativos llevan a cabo el descubrimiento del "mesón". Finalmente en india, se traduce al inglés la obra de Einstein, hay grandes físicos que se relaciona con este y llegaban a ganar el Nobel de física. La ayuda internacional fue importante para este campo.

El último capítulo es sobre la genética, con la bomba atómica y la energía atómica ahora había un interés por la genética, como estudiar los efectos de las bombas atómicas de Japón en más personas, los aportes más importantes fue en la revolución verde y la creación de nuevas plantas más productivas y resistentes, en México fue el maíz, en india el trigo, donde las mujeres fueron fundamentales pese al machismo, en china, pese a al revolución cultural que elimino a varios científicos se pudo mejorar la planta del arroz gracias a los campesinos, una planta ahora capaz de ser polinizada. En Israel se investigó la relación entre la genética y las enfermedades, además de descubrir los ancestros del trigo y la cebada, importante para mejorar la producción mundial. Pese al descubrimiento del mapa del genoma humano siguió el racismo contra algunas etnias dentro de las naciones.

En el epílogo nos hablan de una nueva guerra fría entre EEUU y china, donde la investigación de las inteligencias artificiales es de las cosas más importantes, sus usos son muchos pero lo importante es la recolección de datos personales y otros, cosa que china tiene la ventaja pero que las empresas privadas estadounidenses también están llevando a cabo, el espacio es otra forma de mostrar el dominio nacional, además de tener una ventaja militar. Para concluir el autor menciona que dejemos de mirar la ciencia como algo neutro, en que el Europa siempre dominó, los imperios y la esclavitud cimentaron la ciencia actual.

En conclusión un libro muy bueno, recomendado para los amantes de la ciencia, la historia global y de la historia de las mujeres. Las ilustraciones son hermosas y reflejan una ciencia global.

[Suman Srivastava · Rating 4 out of 5]

This is a scholarly history of science from the 15th century onwards. Fascinating to read about exactly how interconnected science has always been. Fascinating but not unexpected. The author connects major historical changes with significant developments in science.

This book breaks the myth of the lone genius working alone to come up with a breakthrough idea. Sir Isaac Newton, the famous English scientist, once said, “If I have seen further, it is by standing on the shoulders of giants.” It is interesting to learn that the giants he was referring to came from Asia, Africa & Latin America as much as from Europe.

I think people from India, Russia, China and elsewhere who constantly harp on the scientific achievements of their ancient past, would be well advised to read about their country’s scientific achievements of a more recent past.

It’s also useful to understand that science cannot happen within the closed walls of a country.

The book is a little tough to read because of the details the author goes into (he is a professor of the history of science, after all). But well worth the effort.

[Ruwanga Rajapaksha · Rating 4 out of 5]

Très coquin.

540 pages d'histoires des sciences. Dans la même lignée que la route de la soie de Frankopan donc très accessible, mais n'ayant aucune notion de physique, j'ai parfois eu du mal à saisir les différentes implications.

En tout cas je recommande pour toutes les personnes qui veulent lire de l'histoire mais qui ne sont tombé.e.s que sur des pavés injouables.

[Thomas Ravenscroft · Rating 5 out of 5]

This is a great introduction to exploring how many scientific revelations were a result of researchers around the world and not just wealthy white men from Europe and the US. I look forward to reading more books like this that delve deeper into these under celebrated researchers from diverse communities.

[Rowan · Rating 5 out of 5]

Very intriguing

[Holly · Rating 3 out of 5]

The scope was just too broad. I get the point, and this should have been right up my alley, but I couldn't synthesize it.

[bubble butt book lover · Rating 3 out of 5]

This book provides the reader with a clear and concise history of the scientific world as it generally isn’t portrayed by the media or by science classes. It talks about how everyone contributed to the scientific journey, and progressing science further, not simply europeans, but all countries equally, especially as europeans learned about many of their studies from native peoples.

[Yanique Gillana · Rating 5 out of 5]

4.5 stars

I am grateful to Mariner Books for sending me an advanced copy of this book for review.

De-colonializing science history!

I think this is a great topic and I also think that this book was a great presentation of that information. Science history is something that's taught to every science student at some point, but what we are taught is very steeped in colonialism and Western and imperialism . It was nice to read about some things that have been implied, some things that seem obvious and some things that were just brand new to me. I enjoyed how we traveled the world and spoke about scientific findings chronologically and saw different people who were involved and were either completely ignored or were later erased from the narrative.

I appreciated the way that the book presented the importance of local knowledge, culture, and religion, to the development of scientific ideas . It highlighted how many times Europeans overlooked scientific advancements of other people around the world because of the expectation of inferiority of other civilizations. They believed that other peoples would not have anything useful to contribute to the conversation about science and technology. I also thought it was interesting that in some instances when European scientists did give credit to the original sources or referenced work from scientists located in other parts of the world who inspired their process, it was completely erased from the history and these names are never taught to us today. I think the book laid this out pretty nicely and makes it clear to the reader how important other civilizations and other knowledge was to the development of science. Many advancements that we have today, in the hands of the Europeans alone, would have taken much longer.

I am a scientist, which means that at many points in my education I have been taught about those famous names and their achievements, so I found so much value and so much new information in this book. The fact that it compiled all of this information about people who have been erased from science's history and allowed me to appreciate the contributions of these people was a great experience. I have read other books about people (especially women) who have been erased from science history more recently, so it was interesting to see them go as far back as in the days of discovery to show how even then, when the world was being mapped, they were not able to accomplish this in isolation. These explorers depended upon the help of native peoples from different places to assist and guide them to achieve these feats.

I thought this book was accessible and a fast, intriguing read. The author did a great job of structuring this text to make it not tedious but very informative. I would recommend this book to people who are interested in history and science/technology or are just curious about the subject of science history and the impact of colonialism.

[Nicole Simovski · Rating 4 out of 5]

Solid book providing a great deal of detail on global scientific developments in CE. I especially enjoyed the global perspective on the scientific revolution era. It is a long book with looong chapters and felt a bit tedious at times. But an impressive work.

[François Dominic Laramée · Rating 4 out of 5]

Une bonne monographie historique quelque peu trahie par son titre, qui promet plus que ce que l'ouvrage est en mesure de livrer.

L'auteur soutient efficacement son argument central, c'est-à-dire que l'histoire des sciences depuis le XVe siècle devrait être conçue non pas comme une entité séparée mais comme une composante de l'histoire globale, entremêlée avec l'impérialisme, l'esclavage, le commerce, le nationalisme et la guerre froide. On accepte aussi volontiers que le récit traditionnel de la révolution scientifique, qui prétend qu'à peu près tout a été accompli en Europe (du Nord), contient des omissions dommageables et qu'il est indispensable d'aller voir ce qui se passe ailleurs en même temps et qui peut influencer ou être influencé par les événements avec lesquels nous sommes plus familiers. On applaudit lorsque l'auteur peint la science comme un réseau d'échanges, souvent inégalitaires et brutaux mais d'échanges quand même, et qu'il soulève les contributions d'un bon nombre d'acteurs et d'actrices qui ont parfois été oubliés, même dans leurs propres pays.

Il faut aussi saluer l'envergure de la recherche, qui nous amène fréquemment en Chine, en Inde, au Japon et en Russie (qui n'est pas traitée comme européenne dans ce contexte) et assez souvent au Moyen-Orient et en Amérique latine, quoique trop rarement en Afrique. L'appropriation du savoir des captifs autochtones et africains, sur les plantations des Caraïbes au XVIIIe siècle, est particulièrement bien exposée.

Mais ce livre n'est pas une histoire globale des sciences: c'est un greffon qui vient compléter le récit traditionnel de l'histoire des sciences. Lu tout seul, sans "accompagnement", il commet à l'inverse ce qu'il reproche, c'est-à-dire qu'il occulte une grande partie du récit, au point où celui-ci devient difficile à suivre. Lavoisier est nommé une fois, sans que l'on dise un traître mot de ce qu'il a accompli. Gregor Mendel, qui a découvert les mécanismes de l'hérédité, n'a pas de prénom dans ce livre; il est mentionné deux fois par son nom de famille et six fois par l'intermédiaire de l'adjectif "mendélien", sans que l'on ne décrive la nature de ses travaux. Niels Böhr, Ernest Rutherford, Max Planck et même Isaac Newton et Albert Einstein ne sont que des personnages secondaires, qui apparaissent surtout par l'intermédiaire de leurs correspondances avec les vrais héros de l'ouvrage. Si on se fiait à ce livre pour se faire une idée de "l'histoire des sciences", on en ressortirait avec une vision au moins aussi tronquée que celle que l'auteur veut dénoncer. Dommage.

Ceci dit, si vous souhaitez vous plonger dans certains passages saisissants de l'histoire des cinq derniers siècles et connaître des personnages qui le méritent amplement, vous ne pouvez pas vous tromper. À condition de déjà connaître le narratif que l'auteur veut démonter pour être en mesure de faire la part des choses.

[Josh Buermann · Rating 5 out of 5]

Sketches out a history of modern science as the integration of pre-modern systems of human knowledge across the globe, unified in the span of a few centuries under the accident of European imperialism, whose totalizing apex was only reached in a positive feedback loop with the knowledge it was integrating. Yet another history-shaping side effect of the Columbian exchange.

I respect Poskett's decision to avoid controversial claims about Ibn al-Shatir and Copernicus while giving Islamicate science its due, but I am disappointed that he never relishes the irony of how the Great Comet of 1577 was, in the sense that it was important to astrologers and thus to their patrons, simultaneously responsible for the construction of Tycho's observatories at Hven and the destruction of Taki al-Din's observatory in Istanbul. Perhaps the story that the Istanbul Observatory was destroyed because of a bad prognostication is more myth than history.

It was news to me and very interesting how European colonial powers would loot the medical knowledge of their African slaves -- and Poskett doesn't even mention the infamous case of Cotton Mather's slave Onesimus and the introduction of smallpox inoculation to the Americas, all the stories he tells in that section were novel to me -- and then attempt to criminalize the practice of medicine by the slaves they stole it from, foreshadowing both the theory and practice of modern intellectual property law. In another section that struck me Poskett briefly mentions a surge in European research into acupuncture in the 18th century, citing Linda Barnes' "Needles, Herbs, Gods, and Ghosts: China, Healing, and the West", which eventually ended in its abandonment as a scientific dead end. The 70s acupuncture revival in the West is ironically premised on a belief that acupuncture was never seriously studied by Western medicine, an allegation of Western chauvinism where there was none: the early cadres of scientific revolutionaries were exceptionally enthusiastic students of non-European knowledge.

The book knocks down one myth of Western chauvinism after another, many of which still plague popular retellings of science history. The academic literature has been producing rich veins for this narrative for many decades but you almost never find them in the non-fiction section of the book store. Well written. Expansive in its coverage of a massive subject while relying heavily on small and well-documented anecdotes. Really a terrific read. I'm glad someone has finally written this book.

[Valentina Paoli Tinius · Rating 1 out of 5]

I am really not sure what to think about it. True, all these stories that the Author reports are very interesting, picked one per one. But I feel it is lacking in the general view. It is clear, and obvious, that people, events and facts never sprout alone in a desert, but are a result of their time. As it is said, scientists just stand on the shoulder of giants.
It is clear the often history has been taught from an Eurocentric point of view. In the West world, maybe. It is not a novelty. I admirable the effort of the Author to explain instead the real broad history, but I also find this goal totally missed.
I feel the Author has arbitrarily picked out random facts, narrating them with a wanting flair of writer's syndrome, without a general and coherent approach. Also, looking at the bibliography, it looks like the Author just draws really copiously and heavily from books that say exactly the same thing, letting me wonder where is the Author's message?
Also, with many terms he use, many definitions he adopts I get a sens of ingenuity, naïveté, obviousness and superficiality. Sorry, this I cannot accept.
Not to mention that I don't think I have ever read anything with the word "therefore" so massively repeated as in this book.
I am so happy I purchased this book for half price. And i don't think I will donate it in any open / free library, as not to damage any future reader.

[Bill · Rating 4 out of 5]

Horizons, by James Poskett, is a welcome corrective to the Eurocentric history of science many of us learned, as well as, albeit to a lesser extent, the idea of the great genius (almost always a man) making great discoveries independent of all else. Instead, as Poskett mostly does a good job of showing, as he puts it, “Science was not a product of a unique European culture [but] has always depended upon bringing together people and ideas from different cultures around the world,” was shaped by global history, and often progressed thanks to the efforts of “scientists who have been written out of history.”

Early on, Poskett makes several points clear: that this idea of an “exchange” between cultures was not always mutually beneficial but often took the form of one culture exploiting another and that when contributions of non-Western cultures are acknowledged, they’re often “relegated to the distant past [and thus] reinforce the narrative that places like China and the Middle East have little to do with the history of modern science.” After the introduction, The book is structured chronologically into four sections, 1450—1700, 1650—188, 1790—1914, 1914—2000 and ranges across the globe.

The first opens with the Aztecs and then after a brief foray into their natural science, texts, medical knowledge, moves to how the European colonization of the New World (and the “accompanying appropriation of Aztec and Inca knowledge) prompted European scholars to “turn away from ancient texts and start investigating the natural world for themselves.” From there, he explores how the “new era of contact between Europe and Asia had an equally profound effect on the development of science.” For instance, Poskett notes how Copernicus cited nearly a half-dozen Islamic authors in his famed work. While hitting some of the expected settings, such as Baghdad and Istanbul, Poskett also presents the important astronomy carried out in Timbuktu in the 16th century. From there moving forward in time to the 18th century, we pass through the advances made in China and India.

The next section incorporates Polynesia, Mesoamerica, and the Arctic, emphasizing the ways in which this period, often seen as the rise of modern science thanks to Western Europe, had Europeans consistently relying on the knowledge and work of indigenous people, such as “French surveyors . . . depended upon Inca astronomical traditions . . . Captain Cook relied on the navigational expertise of a Polynesian priest and … Russian explorers recruited Indigenous people to guide them across the frozen landscape.” In the third section, Poskett focuses early on evolution and shows how, despite the “Darwin invented the idea” simplification often taught in Western schools, the idea had been percolating around for a while, including in Egypt, Russia, and South America and was also how Darwin’s theory was not just presaged but strengthened/modified in non-Western as well, such as Japan. Then, Poskett moves into chemistry and physics. One of the nice elements here is not just a non-Western focus (the chapter covers contributions to the physical sciences, from Russia, the Ottoman Empire, Japan Colonial India) but also a non-male one, as several of the key scientists were women.

This welcome de-erasure of contributions by women continues in the final section, which focuses a lot on physics and genetics and covers development in Communist Russia, China, India, Mexico, and Japan. In this section we also get one of the most overt examples of Non-Western erasure when an American physicist awarded a Noble Prize for the “discovery” of the positron retracted his early statement that he’d found it by “accident” to acknowledge he’d been inspired by the experiments of a Chinese researcher. We also learn how the poster board for lone genius, Albert Einstein, was heavily influenced by the work of non-Westerners, not just in his physics (where he collaborated with an Indian scientist, Bose, on one of his last great discoveries) but also in his later-life politics.

This great cultural mixing has become especially prevalent recently in space exploration, where non-Western countries are not only sending up their own satellites and probes, but where large missions are made up of wide-ranging collaborations. For instance, The United Arab Emirates recruited scientists/engineers from the US and South Korea, then launched a probe to Mars via a Japanese rocket, though Poskett worries about both the motivations for such programs and their cost in a time where priorities might better be shifted elsewhere (such as battling the impact of climate change).

This wide-picture view is one of the strengths of Horizons. Poskett doesn’t simply range widely geographically, he also pulls back and examines how large historical trends, such as nationalism or the Cold War have had an impact on the development of modern science. He uses those same trends to look forward a bit with regard to space exploration and climate change, as noted, but also the rising importance of A.I. in a thoughtful, neutral fashion.

As noted at the start, Horizons is a welcome text in how it broadens the view so many westerners have on modern science — that it was “birthed” in the West and has always reached its apex there. Here and there I thought Poskett might have pushed things a bit too far in their interrelatedness, but those moments were few and far between and far outnumbered by the wealth of examples he offers up. The prose could have been a bit more engaging, but it certainly was adequate to its purpose. I also appreciated how rather than a litany of generic cultural achievements, Poskett did a nice job of bringing forward the actual people involved in those achievements so that they felt more alive and personal, much more than simple names or blank stand-in for a particular culture or region. Recommended.

[Macy · Rating 4 out of 5]

I loved reading this book. It is a bit of a slow paced reading because it is full of details of who, when, where or what happened in science but it shows clearly how all the great ideas were created not because of one person or one nation but because more people from different nations, of different nationalities and ethnicities inspired from each other or worked together in some cases. Sometimes, these days, people may forget all about this so this book might be a reminder that progress is made if everyone works together and not against each other.



Thank you NetGalley for providing an ARC of the book :)

[Abdul Ahad · Rating 4 out of 5]

[3.5 𝑺𝑻𝑨𝑹𝑺]

𝐑𝐞𝐯𝐢𝐞𝐰: 𝐇𝐨𝐫𝐢𝐳𝐨𝐧𝐬: 𝐓𝐡𝐞 𝐆𝐥𝐨𝐛𝐚𝐥 𝐎𝐫𝐢𝐠𝐢𝐧𝐬 𝐨𝐟 𝐌𝐨𝐝𝐞𝐫𝐧 𝐒𝐜𝐢𝐞𝐧𝐜𝐞

𝘾𝙝𝙖𝙡𝙡𝙚𝙣𝙜𝙞𝙣𝙜 𝙀𝙪𝙧𝙤𝙘𝙚𝙣𝙩𝙧𝙞𝙨𝙢 𝙞𝙣 𝙩𝙝𝙚 𝙃𝙞𝙨𝙩𝙤𝙧𝙮 𝙤𝙛 𝙎𝙘𝙞𝙚𝙣𝙘𝙚
The conventional narrative of the Scientific Revolution credits Europe—particularly the 16th and 17th centuries—with the birth of modern science. Figures such as Copernicus, Galileo, and Newton are often portrayed as the pioneers of this transformation. Historians like Herbert Butterfield reinforced this Eurocentric perspective, presenting science as a uniquely Western achievement.

In Horizons, James Poskett challenges this notion, arguing that modern science did not emerge in isolation within Europe but rather through extensive global interactions. He emphasizes three key points:

Scientific advancements resulted from cross-cultural exchanges, not European exclusivity.

Non-European civilizations played a crucial role in shaping scientific progress.

Europe’s historical dominance has distorted perceptions of science’s true origins.

𝙏𝙝𝙚 𝘿𝙚𝙗𝙖𝙩𝙚: 𝙀𝙪𝙧𝙤𝙘𝙚𝙣𝙩𝙧𝙞𝙨𝙢 𝙫𝙨. 𝙂𝙡𝙤𝙗𝙖𝙡 𝙎𝙘𝙞𝙚𝙣𝙘𝙚
The dominant view asserts that modern science originated in early modern Europe, citing major developments in:

Astronomy – Copernicus and Kepler revolutionized celestial understanding.

Physics – Galileo and Newton laid the foundations for mechanics and gravitation.

Mathematics – Newton and Leibniz independently developed calculus.

Supporters argue that while non-European civilizations contributed knowledge, Europe uniquely transformed it into modern science. Critics of this view risk accusations of relativism or political bias.

Poskett, however, aligns with the globalist perspective, which emphasizes that science was shaped by worldwide knowledge networks rather than European efforts alone. He argues that the idea of the "West" as the exclusive center of scientific progress is a modern myth, sustained by colonial expansion, resource extraction, and knowledge appropriation.

𝙆𝙚𝙮 𝘼𝙧𝙜𝙪𝙢𝙚𝙣𝙩𝙨 𝙖𝙣𝙙 𝙎𝙩𝙧𝙪𝙘𝙩𝙪𝙧𝙚 𝙤𝙛 𝙃𝙤𝙧𝙞𝙯𝙤𝙣𝙨
Poskett reframes the history of science by emphasizing non-European contributions and global knowledge exchanges from 1400 to 2000. He presents case studies such as:

The Samarkand Observatory – A major Islamic astronomical center.

The Human Genome Project – A modern example of global scientific collaboration.

The Role of Colonialism – How European imperialism influenced scientific progress.

He structures his argument through four historical phases:

The Scientific Revolution (16th–17th centuries) – European advancements were influenced by Islamic, Chinese, and American knowledge.

Empire and Enlightenment (18th century) – Colonial expansion fueled scientific discoveries.

Capitalism and Conflict (19th century) – Industrialization, war, and empire accelerated scientific progress.

20th-Century Ideological Struggles – Science became entangled in Cold War geopolitics and postcolonial movements.

Poskett highlights numerous overlooked scientists, reinforcing his argument that scientific progress was a collective global effort rather than a uniquely Western achievement. These figures include Ulugh Beg (Central Asia), Ali Qushji (Ottoman Empire), Tupaia (Polynesia), Ma Junwu (China), and Swaminathan (India), among others.

𝙎𝙩𝙧𝙚𝙣𝙜𝙩𝙝𝙨 𝙤𝙛 𝙃𝙤𝙧𝙞𝙯𝙤𝙣𝙨
-Vivid storytelling brings historical figures to life.
-Challenges the "lone genius" myth, showing how even figures like Newton relied on global knowledge.
-Examines colonialism, capitalism, and war as key drivers of scientific advancements.
-Uses extensive research to challenge the Eurocentric narrative.
-Despite complex themes, the book remains readable and engaging.
-Rich historical examples make key arguments easy to grasp.
-Invites readers to question established narratives of scientific history.
-Critically examines power and colonial influence rather than simply celebrating diversity.

𝙇𝙞𝙢𝙞𝙩𝙖𝙩𝙞𝙤𝙣𝙨
-Some claims linking science and colonialism feel overstated.
Example: Poskett argues Newton’s theory of gravity depended on colonial data from Cayenne, but Newton’s work was largely independent.
-Despite its global focus, the book relies heavily on English-language sources, limiting its depth.
-At times, it overcorrects and minimizes Europe’s internal scientific developments.
-Covers too many topics, making it hard for readers to synthesize key ideas.
-Some arguments get buried under excessive detail.
-Lacks a cohesive structure, making some ideas feel disconnected.
-Frequent repetition makes reading tedious.
-While highlighting overlooked contributors, the book does not deeply engage with scientific theories.
-The earlier sections effectively establish the global nature of science, but the later chapters lose momentum.
-Post-1800s discussions struggle to maintain the global perspective, as many non-Western scientists were trained in European institutions.

𝘾𝙤𝙣𝙘𝙡𝙪𝙨𝙞𝙤𝙣
Poskett’s Horizons is a valuable and necessary book that challenges the Eurocentric view of scientific history. It effectively sheds light on forgotten scientists, neglected histories, and the global nature of knowledge exchange

𝑹𝒆𝒄𝒐𝒎𝒎𝒆𝒏𝒅𝒆𝒅 𝒇𝒐𝒓 𝒕𝒉𝒐𝒔𝒆 𝒔𝒆𝒆𝒌𝒊𝒏𝒈 𝒂 𝒈𝒍𝒐𝒃𝒂𝒍 𝒑𝒆𝒓𝒔𝒑𝒆𝒄𝒕𝒊𝒗𝒆, 𝒃𝒖𝒕 𝒃𝒆𝒔𝒕 𝒓𝒆𝒂𝒅 𝒂𝒍𝒐𝒏𝒈𝒔𝒊𝒅𝒆 𝒐𝒕𝒉𝒆𝒓 𝒉𝒊𝒔𝒕𝒐𝒓𝒊𝒄𝒂𝒍 𝒂𝒏𝒂𝒍𝒚𝒔𝒆𝒔 𝒇𝒐𝒓 𝒂 𝒎𝒐𝒓𝒆 𝒃𝒂𝒍𝒂𝒏𝒄𝒆𝒅 𝒖𝒏𝒅𝒆𝒓𝒔𝒕𝒂𝒏𝒅𝒊𝒏𝒈.