What do you think?
Rate this book
The Earth Encompassed: A History of the Environmental Sciences
An accessible and comprehensive history of discoveries and outlooks that culminated in the modern discipline of environmental studies. This authoritative volume chronicles humanity's long quest to understand its own origins. Peter J. Bowler brilliantly synthesizes discoveries in geography, geology, and evolutionary biology that have brought us to our current knowledge of the fragility and connectedness of life on earth and created the new science of ecology. Bowler adeptly balances a long historical perspective with discussion of specific developments in the major fields relating to the physical and organic environment. He brings to life theoretical debates surrounding the notion of nature as an interconnected whole and addresses the controversial ethical questions raised by the ways we investigate our world and our use of the planet's resources. This book is not only the history of a discipline but also a wide-ranging study of scientific and theoretical innovations and the cultural and professional factors that influence the way scientists explain and understand their observations. 8 pages of illustrations
668 pages, Paperback
First published January 1, 2000
1 person is currently reading
32 people want to read
About the author
Peter J. Bowler
41 books18 followersPeter J. Bowler, FBA, is a historian of biology who has written extensively on the history of evolutionary thought, the history of the environmental sciences, and on the history of genetics.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 of 1 review
February 4, 2015
I'm currently reading in the history of geology, palaeontology, and evolutionary biology, so I thought an integrated history of the "environmental sciences" would be the perfect thing to read. Unfortunately, this book was not perfect. It's not even good.
To begin with, it consists entirely of generalizations, with no detail. Although I don't like books which are all names and dates without interpretation, a "history" which goes dozens of pages at a time with no identifiable people or events is not much use. The book is full of phrases like "some scientists thought . . .", "some people believed . . .", and worst of all, "some modern historians claim . . .". with no references (there are less than 100 notes for a 600 page book). The one exception as far as modern historians go is Michel Foucault, with whom the author seems to be obsessed. If I had not read the much better books by Martin Rudwick (geology & palaeontology) and Ernst Mayr (biology) I would have had no idea who or what the author was talking about. When he does exceptionally give some detail, he seems to have a contrarian desire to oppose the standard accounts just because they are the standard accounts; he goes even farther than Gould in dismissing Hutton and Lyell and actually claims that Werner and the "Neptunians" are the "real" founders of modern geology.
The reason for this becomes evident in the last few chapters. The author, who is a professor of philosophy of science, has an extreme postmodernist philosophy which basically denies that there are any facts, only politically motivated ideological theories. (He says this literally.) So obviously, there is no reason to give the actual discoveries or evidence that theories are based on, or even explain them in detail; all that is necessary is to describe the political implications of the theories and you know why they were developed. (He does say at one point that theories aren't only determined by politics; they are also determined by competition between institutions for funding.) Even this would not be so bad -- after all, these are factors in forming and accepting theories -- if his politics were not so simplistic and idiosyncratic. He sees the development of biology as a struggle between Darwinian "materialists" -- he uses the term equivocally, to mean both seeking material, non-supernatural causes for evolution, and supporting imperialist exploitation, as if these were the same thing -- and environmentally concerned "opponents of materialism" who are "marginalized" by "big science."
If I had read the last chapter first, I would not have wasted a week and a half wading through this book, which I learned absolutely nothing from.
To begin with, it consists entirely of generalizations, with no detail. Although I don't like books which are all names and dates without interpretation, a "history" which goes dozens of pages at a time with no identifiable people or events is not much use. The book is full of phrases like "some scientists thought . . .", "some people believed . . .", and worst of all, "some modern historians claim . . .". with no references (there are less than 100 notes for a 600 page book). The one exception as far as modern historians go is Michel Foucault, with whom the author seems to be obsessed. If I had not read the much better books by Martin Rudwick (geology & palaeontology) and Ernst Mayr (biology) I would have had no idea who or what the author was talking about. When he does exceptionally give some detail, he seems to have a contrarian desire to oppose the standard accounts just because they are the standard accounts; he goes even farther than Gould in dismissing Hutton and Lyell and actually claims that Werner and the "Neptunians" are the "real" founders of modern geology.
The reason for this becomes evident in the last few chapters. The author, who is a professor of philosophy of science, has an extreme postmodernist philosophy which basically denies that there are any facts, only politically motivated ideological theories. (He says this literally.) So obviously, there is no reason to give the actual discoveries or evidence that theories are based on, or even explain them in detail; all that is necessary is to describe the political implications of the theories and you know why they were developed. (He does say at one point that theories aren't only determined by politics; they are also determined by competition between institutions for funding.) Even this would not be so bad -- after all, these are factors in forming and accepting theories -- if his politics were not so simplistic and idiosyncratic. He sees the development of biology as a struggle between Darwinian "materialists" -- he uses the term equivocally, to mean both seeking material, non-supernatural causes for evolution, and supporting imperialist exploitation, as if these were the same thing -- and environmentally concerned "opponents of materialism" who are "marginalized" by "big science."
If I had read the last chapter first, I would not have wasted a week and a half wading through this book, which I learned absolutely nothing from.
Displaying 1 of 1 review