Sleepwalkers

by Arthur Koestler

Arthur Koestler's extraordinary history of humanity's changing vision of the universe

In this masterly synthesis, Arthur Koestler cuts through the sterile distinction between 'sciences' and 'humanities' to bring to life the whole history of cosmology from the Babylonians to Newton. He shows how the tragic split between science and religion arose and how, in particular, the modern world-view replaced the medieval world-view in the scientific revolution of the seventeenth century. He also provides vivid and judicious pen-portraits of a string of great scientists and makes clear the role that political bias and unconscious prejudice played in their creativity.

Genres: History, Science, Nonfiction, Philosophy, History Of Science, Astronomy, Religion

624 pages, Paperback

First published January 1, 1959

About the author

Darkness at Noon (1940), novel of Hungarian-born British writer Arthur Koestler, portrays his disillusionment with Communism; his nonfiction works include The Sleepwalkers (1959) and The Ghost in the Machine (1967).


Arthur Koestler CBE [*Kösztler Artúr] was a prolific writer of essays, novels and autobiographies.

He was born into a Hungarian Jewish family in Budapest but, apart from his early school years, was educated in Austria. His early career was in journalism. In 1931 he joined the Communist Party of Germany but, disillusioned, he resigned from it in 1938 and in 1940 published a devastating anti-Communist novel, Darkness at Noon, which propelled him to instant international fame.

Over the next forty-three years he espoused many causes, wrote novels and biographies, and numerous essays. In 1968 he was awarded the prestigious and valuable Sonning Prize "For outstanding contribution to European culture", and in 1972 he was made a "Commander of the British Empire" (CBE).

In 1976 he was diagnosed with Parkinson's disease and three years later with leukaemia in its terminal stages. He committed suicide in 1983 in London.

Reviews

[Manny · Rating 4 out of 5]

Koestler's book presents a rather good history of cosmology from ancient times until the late 17th century. There are four main sections, respectively devoted to the classical world-view (i.e. before the 15th century), Copernicus, Kepler and Galileo, and in each one I was surprised to see just how ignorant I was.

In the first section, I had not appreciated to what extent scientific progress can go backwards as well as forwards. Koestler describes the Pythagorean school - like Penrose, a modern disciple, he considers Pythagoras one of the most important figures in all world history - and shows how they built up a strikingly modern version of astronomy between the 6th and 3rd centuries B.C. Among other triumphs, they correctly deduced that the Earth was round and rotates, and were able to obtain good estimates for its radius, the distance to the Moon, and even the distance to the Sun. Aristarchus, the last major figure in this line of scientists, developed a plausible heliocentric theory and was greatly respected for centuries after his death.

But then Plato and Aristotle severed the link between theory and observation and reverted to a system which placed the Earth back in the middle of the universe, with everything else rotating around it on an increasingly complex system of crystal spheres; this new geocentric theory received its final incarnation in the work of Ptolemy, in the second century A.D. After the fall of Roman civilization, even this was lost, and by the sixth century A.D. the world was flat again. It was interesting to see how it took several hundred more years to rediscover Ptolemaic astronomy, which was then treated (almost literally) as Gospel truth. Koestler makes fun of the medieval mind-set, but I wondered what would happen if our own civilization collapsed and science reverted to a much more primitive stage. Someone who found a miraculously preserved book on General Relativity and mananaged to figure out what it meant probably wouldn't be too critical.

The detailed account of Copernicus was also illuminating, though here, again, I thought Koestler was a little unfair. He paints Copernicus as a timid nerd who was unable to free himself from the Ptolemaic model and strike out in a genuinely new direction, removing the cycles and epicycles altogether. Well, Copernicus could perhaps have achieved more: but I liked the way he patiently worked within the system and showed that, even in its own terms, it wasn't very good. It isn't as well-known as it should be that the Copernican universe used the same machinery as the Ptolemaic one - intricate arrangements of revolving spheres - but Copernicus's argument was that the arrangement of spheres was simpler if you let the Earth rotate and go round the Sun. It took a while for people to notice Copernicus's work, but when they did the effect was dramatic.

The longest section in the book is about Kepler, clearly Koestler's favorite. I had not appreciated quite how fundamental Kepler's contribution to science was: Koestler argues that he was the first person to formulate a modern scientific law, based on detailed observations and expressed in fully quantitative terms as a mathematical formula, and that he prepared the way for Newton. The process by which Kepler got there is again described in great detail, and I was particularly impressed with Kepler's first attempt to explain the orbit of Mars. His theory was quite good; it agreed with the observations to within 8 minutes of arc, which would have satisfied most people. But Kepler felt he could do better, junked the solution, and spent several more years messing with the data until he derived his First and Second Laws. The accounts of his personal life were also entertaining, and I loved the section about how Tycho Brahe's son-in-law tried to manipulate him into being included as a co-author, but backed down when Kepler added financial conditions to the deal. If he hadn't been so cheap, they would now been called the Kepler-Tengnagel Laws.

But the most surprising part was the chapter on Galileo, which differed from the familiar account to such a large extent that I could hardly believe my eyes. Instead of being a heroic figure cowed into silence by the reactionary forces of the Inquisition, Koestler's Galileo comes across as an arrogant and dishonest jerk. The disagreement with the Church is usually portrayed as simply being about the question of whether the Earth went round the Sun or vice versa, with Galileo clearly being the good guy. Koestler points out a host of perplexing divergences from the myth.

To start with, Galileo was not defending state-of-the-art science, which was Kepler's system, but the outdated Copernican universe, by then nearly a century old; he had never bothered to read Kepler's books properly. The contrast was not against the traditional Ptolemaic system (everything goes round the Earth), but against the much more sophisticated system proposed by Tycho Brahe (the Sun and the Moon go round the Earth, all the other planets go round the Sun). And worst, Galileo had in fact no evidence at all to support the Copernican system against the Tychonian! The only thing that would have helped him was evidence that the stars moved slightly every year as a result of the Earth's movement around the Sun; but his instruments were nowhere near sensitive enough to measure stellar parallax, and in the event he cheated and fabricated a transparently incorrect argument. I had seen a related version before in Feyerabend's Against Method, but wasn't sure I should believe it. Well, clearly I must check this with the primary sources, which I am ashamed to say I have not read.

Koestler's book is by no means perfect. He puts in more detail than he needs to, sometimes for no obvious reason, and it feels too long. He is not very good at science, and it is painfully clear why he stopped with Newton: he doesn't even seem to understand Newton's theories properly, much less the 20th century ones that he sometimes brings in as comparison points. I found most of his digressions into philosophy unconvincing. But he's found an astonishing amount of good material and assembled it into a compelling story. If you're interested in learning where modern science comes from, you might want to check him out.

[Ted · Rating 5 out of 5]

This is a wonderfully readable and interesting account of the history of astronomy, and to some extent cosmology, up to and including Newton. Of particular interest are the quite detailed biographical sections of Copernicus, Tycho Brahe, and Kepler.

I'm lengthening this review today by giving the table of contents. This should present a pretty fair idea of what Koestler covers.

PART ONE : THE HEROIC AGE
1 Dawn
2 The Harmony of the Spheres
3 The Earth Adrift
4 The Failure of Nerve
5 The Divorce from Reality

PART TWO : DARK INTERLUDE
1 The Rectangular Universe
2 The Walled-in Universe
3 The Universe of the Schoolmen

PART THREE : THE TIMID CANON
1 The Life of Copernicus
2 The System of Copernicus

PART FOUR : THE WATERSHED
1 The Young Kepler
2 The 'Cosmic Mystery'
3 Growing Pains
4 Tycho de Brahe
5 Tycho and Kepler
6 The Giving of the Laws
7 Kepler Depressed
8 Kepler and Galileo
9 Chaos and Harmony
10 Computing a Bride
11 The Last Years

PART FIVE : THE PARTING OF THE WAYS
1 The Burden of Proof
2 The Trial of Galileo
3 The Newtonian Synthesis

Each PART has a chronological table appended to it.

This much of the book consumes over 500 pages. There follows a 35 page Epilogue, a selected bibliography, 50+ pages of notes, and a fairly detailed index. The book has probably been in print ever since it was published in 1959.

Equations? Math? Hardly any. Very readable for anyone with an interest.



. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Previous review: The Misanthrope
Next review: The Crusades
Older review: ___

Previous library review: Organization Man William White
Next library review: Mythology Timeless Tales of Gods and Heroes - Edith Hamilton

[E. G. · Rating 4 out of 5]

Introduction, by John Gray
Preface (1968)
Introduction (1959), by Herbert Butterfield

--The Sleepwalkers: A History of Man's Changing Vision of the Universe

Acknowledgements
Selected Bibliography
Notes
Index

[Nick · Rating 5 out of 5]

I've never managed to get into Darkness At Noon. Poeple give it to me and they say "ooooh" and "you must" and "you'll love" and maybe one day I will, but so far I haven't. And that annoys me on some level because everywhere I go I run into Koestler references. It's in V for Vendetta, it's everywhere in the kind of books I enjoy reading. Plus, on the face of it, it's a book I really should enjoy. I completely see why everyone expects me to have read it or to flip out when I do.

But I don't.

But.

But... THIS book, I do get. I am even now reading and re-reading it, back to front and side to side and from the index and from the cover. And it is full of the best of stuff.

Look: there are different ways of getting into a book. One of them is very subservient and obedient, and very often that is a good way. Very often, especially with fiction, it is almost the only way. But this is not fiction and in this case I am not so much following Koestler's flow as I am skipping from current to current in this little bit of his head and everywhere I swim I meet the biggest most awesome sharks and the most colourful fish. Also manatees.

Let's leave that metaphor to go where it will. The point is that from my perspective right now, this is a golden book. Also: Anaximander's vision of the Earth? Superb. This is the kind of book writers should read. Thank you, Koestler.

[Szplug · Rating 4 out of 5]

Koestler brings a true passion to his cosmographical history, detailing man's theorizations and beliefs on the nature of the universe from ancient Mesopotamia through to the enforced recantation by Galileo of his heliocentric confirmations and the synthesis of his predecessor's pioneering work by Newton to establish the basis of modern science.

Though all of his in-depth portrayals of the principal Renaissance cosmographic entrepreneurs - Copernicus, Tycho Brahe, Galileo - are delightful and informative, it is in his depiction of the irrepressible Johannes Kepler that the book reaches its apogee. Kepler's cheerful and unflagging efforts - in the face of poverty, disease, betrayal, stubbornness, blind alleys, mistakes, and tragedy - to establish a logical and mathematical basis for the planet's enigmatic orbits; his capacity for both sarcastic antagonization and affectionate loyalty in his dealings with others; his creative and virile genius in doing much of the leg work necessary for Galileo's success; in short, his so very human failings and virtues make his story the epitomy of the creative potential of the inspired human spirit. Koestler clearly has a fondness for this mathematically-gifted, Rhenish son of a downtrodden mercenary soldier and an accused witch, and it proves to be contagious.

Koestler wanted to probe the almost mystical elements involved in the greatest of human discoveries, especially in the sciences; the title refers to his belief that so many of the pioneers in cosmography laboured and toiled down fruitless pathways using their powers of reason and logic, and only made their crucial breakthroughs under the inspiration of sudden flashes of insight that seemed to bubble up, unbidden and unawares, from the murky depths of the unconscious. I believe his theory has much to recommend it - but even if you don't hold to his occasionally eccentric views, The Sleepwalkers is a fantastic admixture of biography and history on a subject that has proven endlessly fascinating.

[Erik Graff · Rating 4 out of 5]

I've read many of Arthur Koestler's books, enjoying all of them, fiction and non-fiction. This, like his Coincidence and Midwife Toad books, is of the latter category, being a history of astronomical science from the pre-socratics to its publication in 1971. The focus, however, is on several main figures, their scientific work explained within the context of their biographies, viz. Copernicus, de Brahe, Kepler, and Galileo. Newton, by way epilogue, wraps up the series without much biographical exposition.

The book may be generally compared as a special case, that being astronomy, of what is considered in terms of science as a whole in Thomas Kuhn's 'Structure of Scientific Revolutions' (1962) and this within the even broader context of the relations between religion and science.

In an epilogue Koestler takes on the problematics of contemporary microphysics and cosmology, seeing the incomprehensibility of both as indicative of a crisis comparable to that culminating during the 16-17th centuries prior to the synthesis effected by Newton. Interestingly, he does not take on 'the Big Bang' or the Second Law of Thermodynamics, but he does demonstrate how modern physics can 'account for appearances', as Ptolemy did, without necessarily modeling reality, as modern planetary science does. As an aside, he throws in a plug for psi phenomena, an outlier to conventional physics possibly compatible with some future physics capable of reconciling Newton with Heisenberg.

In the course of reading this well-written book I learned that much that I thought I knew about Copernicus and Galileo was mistaken--and not just because I'm not very intelligent, but because many, if not most, popular representations of them are radically oversimplified in service to a mistaken belief in the linear 'progress' of the sciences. Koestler's long view of the history of ideas serves as a corrective to the tendency to overestimate the achievements of the present and of one's own culture.

[emily · Rating 2 out of 5]

DNF at 70%. Felt like I should be re-reading Benjamín Labatut again instead of this. Went into this thinking it might be a bit like Labatut's writing. Admittedly, a big mistake on my part obviously. Koestler is (for the lack of a better word) 'annoying' (for starters, patronising voice/tone? Surprised I even made it this far. Felt like all Kepler's doing is quoting and misquoting from a bunch of dead writers/etc. (and not even making a beautiful composition of it all)). Labatut on the other hand is crack, highly addictive. A world of difference. If you are able to enjoy Marias' Written Lives, this might be your sort of thing. I didn't like Marias' tone/style in that as well, and this is a bit like that.

[Tim · Rating 5 out of 5]

Throughout this highly detailed work by Koestler there is a pendulum swing that might be said to center on a balanced integration of the mystical with the rational. From a certain perspective, we could say that the force which causes the pendulum to swing is human free will and the ability we have to view the world from numerous perspectives. Yet the decisions coming out of free will can be heavily influenced by larger forces: "the cosmology of a given age is not the result of a unilinear, 'scientific' development, but rather the most striking, imaginative symbol of its mentality - the projection of its conflict, prejudices, and specific ways of double-think on to the graceful sky." (106)

This larger environmental pressure on thought is sometimes shaken off by individuals who tap into an element of universal truth and carry it along the path towards a "logical conclusion". Yet none of these individuals ever possess the entire truth, and this can be said of societies, cultures and periods of time as well. Koestler takes the history of cosmology - from the Pythagoreans, Plato and Aristotle through Ptolemy, Copernicus, Kepler, Galileo and Newton to illustrate how the progression of human intelligence (at all levels both "rational" and "mystical") is not linear, nor is it rational in the disinterested scientific sense. There is not a necessary progression to human thought or development. From the heliocentric conceptions of the Pythagoreans we see a regression through the Middle Ages, when we lose the idea of what Koestler calls "pure science" as an "intellectual delight and a way to spiritual release" (37) as well as a more accurate picture of the center of the universe with the regression to the earth center. Extremism presents itself in the form of scriptural interpretation vs. the reading of the transcendent message available in observed facts, which results in a limitation of vision. The divine reality has become too small. Humanity has limited it by an extreme focus on one element of the equation - in this case the mystical over the scientific. The reactionary response to this limitation is shown by Koestler to be extremism in the other direction, to the benefit of technological development but at the risk of complete annihilation of the species in both the physical and the spiritual sense.

In both cases (mystical, scientific) the nature of divinity is confined, reduced, defined. Koestler attacks science for eliminating an entire field of potential thought through failing to recognize "purpose", but his statement could equally apply to the mystical as well: "It betrays a great lack of imagination to believe that the concept of 'purpose' must necessarily be associated with some anthropomorphic deity." (548) Extremism on the mystical side of the pendulum has allowed its vision of divinity to be defined by the scientific in that it reacts to this definition rather than transcending it through incorporating it into a more accurate picture of the whole or reality. In turn, Koestler warns science of its own lack of transcendence "It is therefore a perverse mistake to identify the religious need solely with intuition and emotion, science solely with the logical and rational" (531). In all of this there is a primordial truth waiting to be found and Koestler describes the creative process as a return through un-learning or shaking off the accumulated dross of environment while holding on to the good in accumulated human wisdom.

Throughout the book, this last thought could be expanded into a central theme. Koestler uses this detailed history of human accomplishment through human means to illustrate the necessity of return to primordial truth while holding onto the underlying wisdom that we gain through various advancements. His own words can sum up: "If there is a lesson in our story it is that the manipulation, according to strictly self-consistent rules, of a set of symbols representing one single aspect of the phenomena may produce correct, verifiable predictions, and yet completely ignore all other aspects whose ensemble constitutes reality..." (544).

[Esteban del Mal · Rating 4 out of 5]

Read this for a graduate course in rationalism. I was particularly impressed by the section dedicated to Kepler, who, I am reminded, essentially wrote the first piece of science fiction waaaay back when.

In the middle of the all the gory religious persecution of medieval Europe, a guy figured out that the planets move in an elliptical, as opposed to a circular, orbit around the sun. Koestler takes the reader through the stages of Kepler's thinking, with a wink and a nod to the intuitions that would, at times, lift him above that thinking. Highly recommended.

[Mohsen Azh]

ببخشید کسی پی دی اف این کتاب رو داره ؟ یک دنیا ممنون میشم

[Denisa · Rating 5 out of 5]

I loved spending time with Koestler's strange and vigorous mind. Super engrossing book. An excellent in depth story about the development of astronomy and the people who made the measurements and interpreted the results. I have learned so many interesting stuff about the pioneers of the astronomy (Copernicus, Kepler and Galileo). Below, a few paragraphs that have caught my attention:

-The progress of Science is generally regarded as a kind of clean, rational advance along a straight ascending line; in fact it has followed a zig zag course, at times almost more bewildering than the evolution of political thought. The history of cosmic theories, in particular, may without exaggeration be called a history of collective obsessions and controlled schizophrenias; and the manner in which some of the most important individual discoveries were arrived at reminds one more of a sleepwalker's performance than an electronic brain's.

-Numbers are eternal while everything else is perishable they are of the nature not of matter, but of mind they permit mental operations of the most surprising and delightful kind without reference to the coarse external world of the senses – which is how the divine mind must be supposed to operate. The ecstatic contemplation of geometrical forms and mathematical laws is therefore the most effective means of purging the soul of earthly passion, and the principal link between man and divinity.

- From the end of the sixth century B.C. onward, the idea that the earth was a sphere, freely floating in air, made steady head way. Herodotus 1 mentions a rumour that there exist people far up in the north who sleep six months of the year – which shows that some of the implications of the earth's roundness (such as the polar night) had already been grasped. The next, revolutionary step was taken by a pupil of Pythagoras, Philolaus, the first philosopher to attribute motion to our globe. The earth became air borne.

-By the end of the third century B.C., the heroic period of Greek science was over. From Plato and Aristotle onward, natural science begins to fall into disrepute and decay, and the achievements of the Greeks are only rediscovered a millennium and a half later. The Promethean venture which had started around 600 B.C., had within three centuries spent its elan it was followed by a period of hibernation, which lasted five times as long.

-From Aristarchus there is, logically, only one step to Copernicus; from Hippocrates, only a step to Paracelsus; from Archimedes, only a step to Galileo. And yet the continuity was broken for a time span nearly as long as that from the beginning of the Christian era to our day. Looking back at the road along which human science travelled, one has the image of a destroyed bridge with rafters jutting out from both sides; and in between, nothing.

-Accordingly, the task of the mathematicians was now to design a system which would reduce the apparent irregularities in the motions of the planets to regular motions in perfectly regular circles. This task kept them busy for the next two thousand years. With his poetic and innocent demand, Plato laid a curse on astronomy, whose effects were to last till the beginning of the seventeenth century, when Kepler proved that planets move in oval, and not circular orbits. There is perhaps no other example in the history of thought of such dogged, obsessional persistence in error, as the circular fallacy which bedevilled astronomy for two millennia.

-Now I have said before that we must beware of the word "obvious"; but in this particular case its use is legitimate. For Herakleides and the Pythagoreans had not been led to the heliocentric hypothesis by a lucky guess, but by the observed fact that the inner planets behaved like satellites of the sun, and that the outer planets' retrogressions and changes in earth distance were equally governed by the sun. Thus, by the end of the second century B.C., the Greeks had all the major elements of the puzzle in their hands, 7 and yet failed to put them together; or rather, having put them together, they took them to pieces again. They knew that the orbits, periods and velocities of the five planets were connected with, and dependent on, the sun – yet in the system of the universe which they bequeathed to the world, they managed to ignore completely this all important fact.

-The curse of "spherism" upon man's vision of the universe lasted for two thousand years. During the last few centuries, from about A.D. 1600 onwards, the progress of science has been continuous and without a break so we are tempted to extend the curve back into the past and to fall into the mistaken belief that the advance of knowledge has always been a continuous, cumulative process along a road which steadily mounts from the beginnings of civilization to our present dizzy height. This, of course, is not the case. In the sixth century B.C., educated men knew that the earth was a sphere in the sixth century A.D., they again thought it was a disc, or resembling in shape the Holy Tabernacle.

-Since, in the Middle Ages, the churchmen became the successors to the philosophers of antiquity, and, in a manner of speaking, the Catholic Church took over from the Academy and the Lyceum, its attitude now determined the whole climate of culture and the course of learning. Hence the importance of Augustine, who was not only the most influential churchman of the earlier Middle Ages, the chief promoter of the Papacy as a supranational authority, and the originator of the rules of monastic life; but above all the living symbol of continuity between the vanished ancient, and the emerging new civilization. A modern Catholic philosopher justifiably said that Augustine was "to a greater degree than any emperor or barbarian war lord, a maker of history and a builder of the bridge which was to lead from the old world to the new."

-Indeed, Aristotle's omne quod movetur ab alio movetur – whatever is moved must be moved by another – became the main obstacle to the progress of science in the Middle Ages. This blindness to the fact that moving bodies tend to persist in their movement unless stopped or deflected, prevented the emergence of a true science of physics until Galileo. The necessity for every moving body to be constantly accompanied and pushed along by a mover, created "a universe in which unseen hands had to be in constant operation". 8 In the sky, a host of fifty five angels were needed to keep the planetary spheres moving around; on earth, each stone rolling down a slope, and each drop of rain falling from the sky, needed a quasi sentient purpose functioning as its "mover", to get from "potency" to "act".

-Kepler's eye deficiency seems the most perfidious trick that fate could inflict on a stargazer; but how is one to decide whether an inborn affliction will paralyse or galvanize? The myopic child, who sometimes saw the world doubled or quadrupled, became the founder of modern optics (the word "dioptries" on the oculist's prescription is derived from the title of one of Kepler's books); the man who could only see clearly at a short distance, invented the modern astronomical telescope. We shall have occasion to watch the working of this magic dynamo, which transforms pain into achievement and curses into blessings.

-The Keplerian discoveries were not of the kind which are "in the air" of a period, and which are usually made by several people independently; they were quite exceptional one man achievements. That is why the way he arrived at them is particularly interesting.

-It is, therefore, hardly surprising that the fame of this outstanding genius (Galileo Galilei) rests mostly on discoveries he never made, and on feats he never performed. Contrary to statements in even recent outlines of science, Galileo did not invent the telescope nor the microscope nor the thermometer nor the pendulum clock. He did not discover the law of inertia nor the parallelogram of forces or motions nor the sun spots. He made no contribution to theoretical astronomy he did not throw down weights from the leaning tower of Pisa, and did not prove the truth of the Copernican system. He was not tortured by the Inquisition, did not languish in its dungeons, did not say "eppur si muove" and he was not a martyr of science.

- Kepler: "The thing which dawned on me twenty five years ago before I had yet discovered the five regular bodies between the heavenly orbits ...; which sixteen years ago I proclaimed as the ultimate aim of all research; which caused me to devote the best years of my life to astronomical studies, to join Tycho Brahe and to choose Prague as my residence – that I have, with the aid of God, who set my enthusiasm on fire and stirred in me an irrepressible desire, who kept my life and intelligence alert, and also provided me with the remaining necessities through the generosity of two Emperors and the Estates of my land, Upper Austria – that I have now, after discharging my astronomical duties ad satietatum, at long last brought to light... Having perceived the first glimmer of dawn eighteen months ago, the light of day three months ago, but only a few days ago the plain sun of a most wonderful vision – nothing shall now hold me back. Yes, I give myself up to holy raving. I mockingly defy all mortals with this open confession: I have robbed the golden vessels of the Egyptians to make out of them a tabernacle for my God, far from the frontiers of Egypt. If you forgive me, I shall rejoice. If you are angry, I shall bear it. Behold, I have cast the dice, and I am writing a book either for my contemporaries, or for posterity. It is all the same to me. It may wait a hundred years for a reader, since God has also waited six thousand years for a witness..."

-Other great scientists, including Newton, became embroiled in bitter polemics. But these were peripheral to their work, skirmishes around a solidly established position. The particular tragedy of Galileo was that his two major works were only published after his seventieth year. Up to then, his output consisted in pamphlets, tracts, manuscripts circulated privately, and oral persuasion – all of it (except the Star Messenger) polemical, ironically aggressive, spiced with arguments ad hominem. The best part of his life was spent in these skirmishes. Until the end he had no fortress in the form of a massive and solid magnum opus to fall back upon.

-The uomo universale of the Renaissance, who was artist and craftsman, philosopher and inventor, humanist and scientist, astronomer and monk, all in one, split up into his component parts. Art lost its mythical, science its mystical inspiration; man became again deaf to the harmony of the spheres. The Philosophy of Nature became ethically neutral, and "blind" became the favourite adjective for the working of natural law. The space-spirit hierarchy was replaced by the space-time continuum.

As a result, man's destiny was no longer determined from "above" by a superhuman
wisdom and will, but from "below" by the sub-human agencies of glands, genes, atoms, or waves of probability. This shift of the locus of destiny was decisive. So long as destiny had operated from a level of the hierarchy higher than man's own, it had not only shaped his fate, but also guided his conscience and imbued his world with meaning and value. The new masters of destiny were placed lower in the scale than the being they controlled; they could determine his fate, but could provide him with no moral guidance, no values and meaning. A puppet of the Gods is a tragic figure, a puppet suspended on his chromosomes is merely grotesque.

[the_deepest_black]

Koestler piszę tę książkę jako literat z pasją do historii filozofii przyrody. W kwestii Platona za bardzo ufa Popperowi. Co to geocentrycznych modeli astronomicznych jest często niesprawiedliwy. Popełnia też błędy.

Ze wstępu (jako motto książki):

"Tymczasem we wszystkich systemach kosmologicznych, od pitagorejczyków po Kopernika i Eddingtona, znajdują odzwierciedlenie nieświadome uprzedzenia, filozoficzne, a nawet polityczne poglądy ich autorów. Żadna dziedzina nauki, od fizyki pod fizjologię, nie może twierdzić, że jest wolna od takich czy innych nachyleń metafizycznych. Postęp nauki zazwyczaj postrzega się jako regularny, racjonalny marsz wzdłuż prostej wznoszącej się lini. Zwłaszcza historię teorii kosmologicznych można bez przesady nazwać historią zbiorowych obsesji i kontrolowanych zchizosfernii, sposób zaś, w jaki dokonały się jedne z najwazniejszych odkryć, kojarzy się raczej z zachowaniem lunatyka, niż elektronicznego mózgu" (11).

###

"Szóste stulecie przedchrześcijańskie - niezwykłe stulecie Buddy, Konfucjusza, Lao-Cy, filozofów jońskich i Pitagorasa - było punktem zwrotnym w dziejach gatunku ludzkiego. Wiosenny wiatr zdawał się ciągnąć przez naszą planetę od Chin do Samos, rozbudzając świadomość człowieka, niczym tchnienie w nozdrzach Adama" (22).

Napisać o kosmologii przedsokratyków!

Pitagoras z Samos, "którego wpływ na idee, a przeto na losy rodzaju ludzkiego, był prawdopodobnie większy niż jakiegokolwiek innego człowieka w dziejach. [...] W swym długim życiu zmieścił, mówiąc słowami Empedoklesa, 'wszystkie rzeczy, które są zawarte w dziesiędziu, a nawet dwudziestu pokoleniach ludzi'" (25-26).

"Pitagoras tak się ma do Talesa, jak filozofia Gestalt do dziewiętnastowiecznego materializmu. Wahadło zostało puszczone w ruch. Jego tykanie będzie słyszane przez całą historię, gdy tarcza przeskakuje między skrajnymi pozycjami 'wszystko jest ciałem' i 'wszystko jest umysłem'; gdy akcent przenosi się z 'substancji' na 'formę', ze 'struktury' na 'funckję', z 'atomów' na 'schematy', z 'cząstek' na 'fale' i z powrotem" (29).

"Herodot wspomina pogłoskę, że na północy żyją ludzie, którzy śpią przez sześć miesięcy w roku, co dowodzi, że niektóre implikacje kulistości Ziemi, takie jak noc polarna, były już rozumiane" (43).

Palenisko wszechświata.

"Wokół ognia centralnego krążyło zatem po koncentrycznych orbitach dziewięć ciał: po najmniejszech antichton, potem Ziemia, księżyc, Słońce i sześć planet. Dalej była sfera unosząca wszystkie gwiazdy stałe. [...] Słońce służyło jedynie za rodzaj przezroczystego okna bądź soczewki, przez którą światło było filtrowane i rozprowadzane. Obraz ten przypomina nieco dziury w wypełnionej ogniem oponie Anaksymandra" (44-45).

"Pitagorejczycy nie zarzucili idei centralnego ognia, lecz przenieśli go do wnętrza Ziemi, przeciwziemię utożsamili zaś po prostu z ksieżycem" (46).

"Jak się zdaje, pierwszą osobą, która orzekła, że Phōsphóros i Hésperos, to jedna i ta sama planeta, był Pitagoras" (49).

"Są jednak sytuacji, kiedy dostrzeżenie oczywistości wymaga wielkiej siły wyobraźni połączonej z brakiem respektu dla tradycyjnego sposobu myślenia" (49).

"Nie wiemy, czyjego autorstwa jest hipoteza o obrocie Ziemi wokół własnej osi. Wymienia się w tym kontekście dwa nazwiska: Hikatesa (niektóre źródła nazywają go Hiketasem) oraz Ekfantosa, obu mających pochodzić z Syrakuz. Nic jednak o nich nie wiemy. Nie znamy nawet daty ich narodzin i śmierci" (549).

Wg przypisywanego Plutarchowi traktatu Placita Philosophorum 3,11: Filolaos Pitagorejczyk umieszcza ogień w środkowym miejscu, i jest to ogniskiem Wszechświata; na drugim miejscu Przeciwziemię; na trzecim Ziemię, na której mieszkamy, która obraca się, przez co nie można zobaczyć tamtej strony. (tekst gr., przekład ang.).

Seleukos "opracował teorię przypływów i odpływów morza opartą na obrocie Ziemi" (549).

"Nie istnieją żadne dowody na poparcie tej hipotezy [że Heraklides głosił już pogląd taki, jak Tycho Brahe]" (549).

"Arystarch, ostatni z astronomów pitagorejskich, pochodził, podobnie jak mistrz, z Samos. Najprawdopodobniej urodził sie w 310 roku p.n.e., roku śmierci Heraklidesa [...]. Zachowała się tylko jednak jego krótka rozprawa 'O wielkości i odległości Słońca i Księżyca'. [...] Archimedesa 'O rachubie ziarn piasku'. [...] Równie ważna jest wzmianka Plutarcha [...]. W jego rozprawie 'O obliczu na tarczy księżyca' jedna z postaci wymienia Arystarcha z Samos, "który uważał, że niebiosa spoczywają, Ziemia zaś krąży po pochyłej orbicie, jednocześnie kręcąc się wokół własnej osi". A zatem Arystarch doprowadził linię myślenia zapoczątkowaną przez Pitagorasa i kontynuowaną przez Filolaosa i Heraklidesa do logicznej konkluzji: wszechświata ześrodkowanego na Słońcu" (50-51).

O systemie geocentrycznym: "monstrualnego systemu astronomicznego, który wydaje nam się dzisiaj obrazą dla ludzkiej inteligencji, a który panował przez półtora tysiąca lat" (51).

O Platonie.

"Zasowane dialogi Platona o potwierdzonej autentyczności złożyłyby się na tom grubości Biblii" (54).

" wydanie się głównym czynnikiem odpowiedzialnym za odstręczające aspekty platonizmu. Pitagorejska synteza religii i nauki, podejścia mistycznego i empirycznego, rozsypała się. Mistycyzm pitagorejczyków został doprowadzony do jałowej skrajności, podczas gdy nauki empiryczne spotyka szyderstwo i lekceważenie. Bractwo pitagorejskie uległo przekształceniu w przewodników do totalitarnej utopii. Wędrówka dusz do Boga została zdegradowana do postaci potrzebnym do celów wychowawczych pogadanek o tym, że tchórze zostaną ukarani wcieleniem w kobietę; orficki system przeszedł w nienawiść do ciała i pogardę dla zmysłów. Badając naturę, nie można uzyskać prawdziwej wiedzy, albowiem . [...] Kiedy rzeczywistość staje sie nieznośna, umysł musi sie z niej wycować i stworzyć świat sztucznej doskonałości, platoński świat czystych idei i form, który jako jedyny można uznać za rzeczywisty, podczas gdy postrzegany przez nas świat natury jest tylko jego tanią i kiepską imitacją, a życie w nim to ucieczka w złudzenie. Intuicyjna prawda zawarta w alegorii jaskini zostaje tu doprowadzona do absurdu przez nadmierne ukonkretnienie - jakby autor sformułowania przystąpił do badania rzeczywistego rozkładu łez w padole. [...] Jeśli powyższe słowa sprawiają wrażenie surowego i jednostronnego osądu filozofii Platona, to dlatego, że tak właśnie, jak to przedstawiłem, była ona rozumiana przez długi szereg przyszłych pokoleń - mówię tu o jednostronnym cieniu, który rzucał ten myśliciel" (57-58).

"Można zaryzykować stwierdzenie, że to Platon spowodował upadek filozofii, który uczynił spadkobierców autora 'Państwa' głuchymi na harmonię natury. Grzechem, który doprowadził do upadku, było zerwanie pitagorejskiej jedności między filozofią przyrody a religią, zanegowanie nauki jako sposobu oddawania czci, rozszczepienie substancji wszechświata na nikczemne niziny i eteryczne wyżyny, składające się z różnej materii, rządzące się różnymi prawami. Ów 'rozpaczliwy dualizm', jak moglibyśmy to nazwać, został przez neoplatończyków przeniesiony na grunt filozofii średniowiecznej" (85).

"Platon twierdził, że wiedzę prawdziwą można uzyskać tylko intuicyjnie, za pomocą oka duszy, a nie ciała. Arystoteles podkreślał znaczenie doświaczenia - empiria - przeciwstawionego intuicyjnej aperia" (107).

Przypis na str. 550.

"W celu wyjaśnienia ruchu siedniu planet Arystoteles użył aż pięćdziesięciu czterech sfer" (66).

"Powody, dla któych [Arystoteles] dołożył dodatkowe dwadzieścia sfer, są bardzo interesujące. Eudoksos i Kallippos nie mieli ambicji stworzenia modelu, któy byłby fizycznie możliwy. [Nie byli kosmologami]. Nie obchodził ich rzeczywisty mechanizm niebios. Skonstruowali system czysto geometryczny, który, o czym wiedzieli, mógł istnieć tylko na papierze. Arystoteles zapragnął więcej, chciał przekształcic ich system w zdolny do działania model fizyczny. Trudność polegała na tym, że wszelkie sąsiednie sfery muszą być ze sobą mechanicznie połączone, lecz indywidualny ruch poszczególnych planet nie może być przekazywany innym planetom. Arystoteles próbował rozwiązać ten problem przez włożenie pewnej liczny sfer 'neutralizujących', obracających się w kierunku przeciwnym do sfer 'roboczych', pomiędzy warstwy związane z poszczególnymi planetami. Dzięki temu wpływ ruchów, na przykład Jowisza na ruchy Marsa, był eliminowany i 'cebulę' Marsa można było rozpatrywać niezależnie. Co się wszak tyczy odtworzenia rzeczywistych ruchów planet, to model Arystotelesa nie wniósł żadnego usprawnienia.
Ponadto pozostała jeszcze jedna trudność. Podczas gdy każda sfera uczestniczyła w ruchu otulającej ją większej sfery, potrzebowała jednak specjalnej siły, która nadawałaby jej niezależny ruch obrotowy wokół własnej osi. Oznaczało to, że potrzeb było aż pięćdziesięciu pięciu 'nieruchomych poruszycieli', czyli dichów, aby system funkcjonował" (66-67).

"System Ptolemeusza ma w sobie coś głęboko odpychającego. Jest to dzieło pedanta obdarzonego olbrzymią dierpliwością i znikomą oryginalnością, z uporem maniaka dokładającego kolejne kręgi. [...] Była to monumentalna i przygnębiająca tapiseria, wytwór zmęczonej filozofii i dekadenckiej nauki" (71-72).

"Hipparch zastosował je [epicykle] jednak tylko do skonstruowania orbit Słońca i Księżyca" (71).

Cytaty z autorów supremujących Słońce - s.73.
Dowód na to, że nie zapomniano nauki o centralnej roli Słońca, mimo panowania teorii Ptolemeusza. (Umieścić zaraz po pitegorajczykach).

"Ta kontrolowana schizofrenia trwała przez całe średniowiecze", jak powiedziałby Koestler.

"Astronomia po Arystotelesie stała się abstrakcyjną geometrią nieba, niezwiązaną z rzeczywistością fizyczną. [...] Służyła celom praktycznym jako metoda układania tablic ruchów Słońca, Księżyca i planet, lecz na temat rzeczywistości fizycznej nie miała nic do powiedzenia. [...] ponieważ ciała niebieskie, obdarzone boską naturą, posłuszne są innym prawom niż te, które znamy na Ziemi. Nie istnieje między nimi żaden związek, wobec czego nie możemy nic wiedzieć o fizyce nieba. [...] rozwód między czterema elementami regionu podksiężycowego i piątym elementem w niebiosam wiedzie bezpośrednio do oddzielenia geometrii od fizyki, a stronomii od rzeczywistości" (76).

"W późniejszej i krótszej pracy, zatytuowanej Zasady ruchu planet, Ptolemeusz bez przekonania podjął próbę nadania swemu systemowi pozorów wiarygodności fizycznej, przedstawiajac każdy epicykl jako sferę lub dysk ślizgajacy się pomiędzy dwoma powierzchniami sferycznymi, jak w łożysku kulkowym. Próba nie powiodła się jednak" (553).

"W VI wieku p.n.e. ludzie wykształceni wiedzieli, że Ziemia jest kulą; w VI wieku n.e. sądzili, że jest krążkiem, czy też przypomina kształtem święte tabernakulum" (81).

"Makrobiusz, Chalcydiusz, Martianus Capella, trzej encyklopedyści z okresu rozpadu Cesarstwa Rzymskiego (IV - V w. n.e. [...] byli zwolennikami systemu Heraklejdesa. Został on podjęty w IX weku przez Jana Szkoda, który uczynił nie tylko planety wewnętrzne, lecz wszystkie z wyjątkiem dalekiego Saturna satelitami Słońca. [...] Posłuchajmy co ma w tej kwestii do powiedzenia największy autorytet: 'Większość ludzi, którzy między IX i XII wiekiem pisali o astronomii i tórych dzieła się zachowały, znali i uznawali za prawdziwą teorię autorstwa Heraklejdesa z Pontu" (101).

"Istnieją zaburzenia umysłowe, których ofiary odczuwają przymus, aby nie następować na krawędzie płyt chodnikowych lub policzyć zapałki w pudełku przed położeniem się slać, co odgrywa rolę rytuału chroniącego przed lękiem. [...] Średniowieczne życie w swych typowych aspketach przypimina rytualne zachowania osoby cierpiącej na nerwicę natręct, które służą ochronie przed wszechobejmującą zarazą ziemniaczaną, grzechu, winy i duchowych cierpień" (103). Czyżby Koestler czerpał tę wiedzę z własnego doświadczenia?

O tym jak bardzo upadła astronomia w śrdniowieczu może świadczyć choćby to, że niejaki Laktancjusz uważał ziemię za płaską, a modelem wszechświata, który funkcjonował przez jakiś czas był, jak przekonuje Koestler, nawet nie model wulgarnie sferyczny, ale prostokątny.

Kopernik
„Pierwszy z pionierów nowej epoki nie należał do niej, lecz do poprzedniej. Chociaż urodził się w czasach odrodzenia, był człowiekiem średniowiecza: gnębionym średniowiecznymi lękami, trawionym średniowiecznymi kompleksami, który wbrew swej woli zapoczątkował rewolucję” (114).
„Kopernik jest być może najbardziej bezbarwną postacią spośród wszystkich, które siłą swych zasług bądź okoliczności wpłynęły na bieg losów ludzkości. Na rozświetlonym niebie renesansu jawi się jako jedna z tych ciemnych gwiazd, o których istnieniu zaświadcza tylko silne promieniowanie” (124).
"W istocie Kopernik doprowadził ortodoksję kół i sfer jeszcze dalej niż Arystoteles i Ptolemeusz (192).
"Kopernik był ostatnim arystotelikiem pośród wybitnych naukowców. W swym stosunku do natury tacy ludzie jak Roger Bacon, Mikołaz z Kuzy, William Ockham i Jean Buridan, żyjący sto lub dwieście lat wcześniej w porównaniu z Kopernikiem byli 'nowożytnikami'" (195).
"Istnieje znane powiedzenie, że Marks 'postawił Hegla na głowie'. To samo uczynił Kopernik z Ptolemeuszem. W obu przypadkach tkwiący w tej niewygodnej pozycji autorytet przyniósł swemu uczniowi zgubę" (207).
"[...] upchnął ogromną liczbę epicykli i deferetów w najbardziej niestrawnej spośród książek, które wpłynęły na bieg historii" (198).
Posłuszeństwo autorytetom odbierało Kopernikowi „niezależność postępowania i niezależność myślenia, trzymało w narzuconej sobie samemu niewoli i czyniło z niego ascetyczny relikt średniowiecza pośród humanistów renesansu” (173).
„Zaiste określenie ‘stary zgred’ nie jest tu chyba przesadzone” (181).
"Kopernik wraz ze starożytnymi uważał oś ziemską za quasi-mechanicznie przytwierdzoną do obręczy orbity (znalogicznie do Księżyca, zawsze zwracającego się ku Ziemi tą samą stroną) i dlatego musiał wprowadzić specjalne ruch, któy sprawiał, że oś Ziemi była równoległa do siebie w przestrzeni" (565).
"Przyczyny, dla których Kopernik musiał zwiększyć liczbę epicykli, są następujące:
a) aby zrekompensować usunięcie ekwantów Ptolemeusza;
b) aby wyjaśnić wyimaginowane wahania prędkości precesji i nachylenia ekliptyki;
c) aby wyjaśnić stały kąt osi ziemskiej;
d) ponieważ koniecznie chciał rozłożyć oscylacje prostoliniowe na ruchy kołowe, o co nie dbał Ptolemeusz, który nie był aż takim purystą (566).
"Kopernik doszedł do błędnego wniosku, że szybkość precesji punktów równonocy nie jest jednostajna, i próbował wyjaśnić jej wyimaginowane działania, a także równie wyimaginowane fluktuacje nachylenia ekliptyki, za pomocą dwóch niezależnych od siebie ruchów oscylacyjnych osi Ziemi" (566-567).

„W dialekcie frankoński köpperneksch do dziś oznacza mało wiarygodne, niestworzone bajanie” (183).
And for many people the Sun-centred model was still too radical even to be contemplated, so much so that Copernicus’s work may have resulted in a new meaning for an old word. One etymological theory claims that the word ‘revolutionary’, referring to an idea that is completely counter to conventional wisdom, was inspired by the title of Copernicus’s book, ‘On the Revolutions of the Heavenly Spheres’. And as well as revolutionary, the Sun-centred model of the universe also seemed completely impossible. This is why the word köpperneksch, based on the German form of Copernicus, has come to be used in northern Bavaria to describe an unbelievable or illogical proposition. All in all, the Sun-centred model of the universe was an idea ahead of its time, too revolutionary, too unbelievable and still too inaccurate to win any widespread support.
„To, co mazywamy rewolucją Kopernikańską, nie dokonało się za sprawą kanonika Mikołaja. Wszczęcie rewolucji nie było jego zamiarem. Wiedział, że znaczna część jego ksiażki jest nie do obrony, sprzeczna z doświadczeniem, główne zaś jej założenia nie do udowodniena. Sam wierzył w nie tylko połowicznie […] Brakowało mu cech proroka: świadomości misji, oryginalności spojrzenia, odwagi głoszenia swych przekonań” (147).

„Fascynacja Kopernika pitagorejskim kultem tajemnicy [który Koestler nazywa aroganckim i antyhumanistycznym (!)] pojawiła się u niego wcześnie, wyrasta z samych korzeni jego osobowości. Szczególną rolę odgrywa tu […] list Lizysa”, który Kopernik przetłumaczył z greki na łacinę (jest to falsyfikat powstały podobno w II w. n.e.) (148). „Istnieje dziwna konsekwencja między charakterem Kopernika a skromnym, wręcz ukradkowym sposobem, w jaki rewolucja Kopernikańska weszła tylnymi drzwiami historii poprzedzona przepraszającą uwagą [Osiandra]: ‘Proszę nie traktować tego poważnie – to tylko zabawa, wyłacznie dla matematyków, rzecz wysoce nieprawdopodobna” (169).
Astronom niemiecki Ernst Zinner jest pewien, że Kopernik zdążył zobaczyć przedmowę Osiandra – o czym zapewnia w liście do Koestlera (s. 168).

„Kopernik wierzył, że Ziemia się porusza. Niemożliwe jest jedna, aby wierzył, że Ziemia lub planety poruszają się tak, jak to opisał w swym systemie epicykli [mniejszych] i deferentów, które były geometrycznymi fikcjami” (169).
„Tajemnica przedmowy [Osiandra] która przetrwałą trzy stulecia, współgra oczywiście ze skrytością obyczajów kanonika Mikołaja, z jego pitagorejskim kultem tajemniczności i ezoterycznym mottemjego dzieła: ‘tylko dla matematyków’. […] [Jej autor, Osiander] powtarzał tylko klasyczną doktrynę, w myśl której fizyka[czy kosmologia] i geometria nieba [astronomia] to osobne dziedziny” (166).
Na całej Warmii nie było nikogo, z kim Kopernik mógłby porozmawiać o astronomii.

Zdradził swego młodego ucznia Retyka (poniżej trzydziestki),nie wspominając o nimw przedmowie, co prawdopodobnie spowodowało, że Retyk po wydanie dzieła Kopernika przestał o nim myśleć i zajął się innymi sprawami. Dopiero po przyjeździe do Krakowa…

O 'De Revolutionibus'

Tak więc razem wystarczy zbiorowisko trzydziestu czterech kół - 'Komentarzyk'.

"W rzeczywistości Kopernik posługuje się czterdziestoma ośmioma epicyklami - jeśli dobrze policzyłem. Co więcej, Kopernik zawyżył liczbę epicykli w systemie Ptomelejskim [względem systemu Ptolemejskiego]. W zaktualizowanej piętnastowiecznej wersji Peurbacha system Ptolemejski wymagał nie osiemdziesięciu epicykli, jak twierdził Kopernik, lecz czterdziestu. Innymi słowy, wbrew panującemu przekonaniu [...] Kopernik nie zmniejszył, lecz zwiększył liczbę epicykli (z czterdziestu do czterdziestu ośmiu) (188).

"Ziemie nie krąży [...] wokół Słońca, lecz wokół punktu oddalonego od słońca mniej więcej o trzy jego średnice. Również planety nie krążą u Kopernika wokół Słońca, choć tak nas wszystkich uczono w szkole. [...] Sys

[Andy Miller · Rating 5 out of 5]

I read this book over half a century ago and would still say that it is one of the most enjoyable and memorable that I have ever read. It is a story of heroic and dedicated individuals, of the power - and creativity - of the human intellect and of struggles between rationality, perseverance, dogma, power and ignorance.

Thrilling and totally engaging!

This is my video review:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dqKhU...

[Tim · Rating 4 out of 5]

A heavy subject, but very interesting. A mixture of history, cosmology/astronomy, and physics. I never was good at physics back in school, due to whatever reason (mainly the way the teachers explained it, I guess). Astronomy was an interest of mine, but without all the mathematics and what not. History, too, but again, circumstances weren't always favourable. Or, in other words, once out of school, I became more interested in certain subjects at which I wasn't always successful in school.

In any case, this book was a sort of blind purchase: I never checked reviews or other info prior to buying it. But the blurb looked interesting and the shopkeeper told me several other customers had really liked the book.

Arthur Koestler has - or rather, had - a way with words. His style is quite fluent, eloquent (if I may write so). This is no fast-paced thriller, it's best to take your time to explore the many centuries of exploring the Solar System, from +/- 600 BC until the 17th century. Or, from a.o. the Babylonians until Newton, with in-between famous chaps like Ptolemy, Plato, Aristotle, Copernicus, Kepler, and Galileo. Keywords: heliocentric cosmology, geocentric cosmology.

Koestler presents a nice and detailed overview of how man's view on the cosmos changed from gods to a scientific approach (though that one came quite late). The book also tells how at some point in history, the perception was better - more accurate - than it was several centuries later, when the Church (or religion) was very adamant about Holy Scripture and how one could not go against that. Related to that: the trial against Galileo, for example.

You can also read how e.g. Copernicus, Kepler, and Galileo found out by accident (whilst concentrating on other matters, other influences) about Earth's and other planets' rotation around the sun (and not the other way around). How one invented spheres to describe the movements of the planets, how another wrote of spokes, and how much later magnetism came into play.

Of course, it's not all about those researches and findings of the various scientists (in whatever age they lived). The book also tells about the struggles, the hurdles and what not - especially - Copernicus, Kepler, and Galileo had to face. But also how Galileo saw himself as THE chosen one with regards to the cosmos, how he claimed to have found the solution to problem x or y, while it were other researches who had done all the work, which Galileo never thought of examining and continued stubbornly his own work. This sort of matches - as far as I remember - the Galileo I read about in Kim Stanley Robinson's book, Galileo's Dream (see my review here).

Copernicus is described as an introvert, one with a low self-esteem, very obedient towards authority. He also - pardon my French - lacked the balls to stand up for himself. When offered help and advice, he remained stubborn and didn't publish his findings. For a long time he clung unto the principles of Aristotle, who was partly responsible for the dark ages in cosmology, and didn't want to alter his views and theory.

Isaac Newton is mentioned only briefly - certainly compared to the more detailed accounts about Corpernicus, Kepler, and Galileo - and mainly his findings and further explorations are discussed. Koestler wrote that there have been many books already about the man's life, that it wasn't really necessary to include such details, thus better to focus on his work. And so you'll read how he took elements from Kepler and from Galileo, and improved their examinations.

In the Epilogue, Koestler throws in a large chunk of physics and some philosophy, but also looks back at the evolution of cosmology. And how the separation of religion and science sort of impoverished both and made our view on the cosmos and the world a rather cold one, since the workings come across as mechanistic; there's no god or other being to keep the system in place, to maintain it now and then (a perception people did have many centuries ago). Religion and science don't complement each other any more (unless you're open-minded to find that it's not one or the other, of course, that each is, one way or another, right).

Throughout the book (and sometimes in the Notes section), you'll see several extracts (also very eloquently written, of course - very interesting if you're into languages) from the works, letters, ... of Copernicus, Kepler, and Galileo. The whole is (fortunately) enhanced with chronological tables (summarizing each part of the book, or each historical era, featuring names, dates, short info), drawings/illustrations, and maps.

In short: A very worthwhile synthesis of 2,000 years of cosmology (through European eyes) and how man's view changed massively, thanks to several bright minds, and despite the struggle with the Church. There's also enough food for thought for years to come.
It has sparked my interest to read more about the subject. In due time, of course.

P.S.: An interesting book for amateurs of Space Operas (SF) as well, obviously. ;-)

[Kuszma · Rating 5 out of 5]

Ritka szerencsés pillanat, amikor egy magasan kvalifikált szépíró és a nyitott tudományos gondolkodás egy személyben találkozik – az Alvajárók ilyen pillanat eredménye. Végig lenyűgözött az a lelkesültség, ahogy Koestler a természetfilozófia világát kezelte a babilóniai asztronómusoktól egészen a newton-i szintézisig. Ez a lelkesültség éppúgy lemérhető Kepler iránt érzett vonzalmán, mint Galilei-kritikáján – az volt a benyomásom, hogy ilyen éllel csak azt tudjuk bírálni, aki már-már személyes ismerősünk. Ez a helyenként lírai hév nagyon megkapó, mert jelzi, Koestler mély szerelemmel szereti a gondolkodás bátorságát, ami a tárgyalt elmékre oly igen jellemző – és ami engem is elkápráztat, mert alig hiszem, hogy Isten (akit most mint munkahipotézist emlegetek) olyan világot teremtett volna, amit minél tüzetesebben megismerünk, annál távolabb kerülünk a teremtőjétől. Lássuk be, egy ilyen teremtett világ elég rossz vicc lenne – egy igazi patkányfogó.

Másrészt Koestler az igazi szintetizáló gondolkodók mintapéldánya. Arra törekszik, hogy az elemekből egészt hozzon létre, egyetlen gigantikus felépítményt. Persze az effajta építmények részleteikben esetleg vitathatóak, mégis lenyűgözőek, mert öröm továbbgondolni őket. A koestler-i szintézis bőven használ analógiákat – ilyen például a biológiai evolúció és a tudományos gondolkodás párba állítása. Előbbi is számos zsákutca, megtorpanás és tömeges fajkihalás után jutott el oda, ahova, és a természettudomány esetében sincs ez másképp. A nagy görög „kognitív forradalom” után, ami elhozta Püthagoraszt, Arisztarkhoszt, a heliocentrikus világképet és az atomokat, az agy behúzta a kéziféket, visszatáncolt és leragadt Platónnál meg Arisztotelésznél. Innentől kétezer éves böjt következett, amiből csak Kopernikusz, majd Kepler és Galilei, végül Newton szabadított ki minket. Ez a folyamat időbeliségében gyanúsan egyszerre zajlott a reformációval, ami újabb analógiára csábítja Koestlert, aki a két eseményt ugyanarra az igényre vezeti vissza: a megcsontosodott dogmatikával való leszámolás vágyára. Ugyanakkor az író tagadja, hogy tudomány és vallás elhidegülése törvényszerű lett volna, szerinte inkább hibás személyes döntésekre (elsősorban Galilei döntéseire, hogy pontosak legyünk) vezethető vissza. Ez Koestler megközelítésében szerencsétlen szakítás volt, hiszen amíg a XVI-XVII. században vallás és tudomány többé-kevésbé azonos nyelvet beszéltek (a jezsuiták közül kerültek ki a korszak legjobb csillagászai), addig a szakadás után nyelvük és univerzumuk szinte összevethetetlenül elkülönült, így fel is adták annak esélyét, hogy érdemben tanuljanak egymástól.

A harmadik analógia, amivel Koestler dolgozik, értelemszerűen a múlt és a jelen között állítható fel. Az író az ötvenes évek közepéből küldi hozzánk utószavát, abból a korból, amit alaposan meghatározott a félelem, hogy bolygónk atombomba által fogja megöngyilkolni enmagát. Ennek fényében értelmezendő az óva intés: Ember, vigyázz a tudományos zsákutcákra! Ne hidd, hogy feltalálni valamit önmagában bármit is jelent – keress hozzá koncepciót is, egy célt, ami meghatároz. És folyamatosan, újra és újra vizsgáld felül a dogmáidat, hogy nem megszokásból ragaszkodsz-e hozzájuk.

Szóval nagy könyv, csodás könyv. Nem klasszikus értelemben vett természettudomány, a szónak abban az értelmében, hogy bár akad benne bolygópálya-modellezés és némi matematika, mégsem ezeken van a hangsúly – sokkal inkább magán a tudományos gondolkodáson, a folyamaton, amikor az elme szépen, lassan, kínlódva lebontja az elődei által épített mentális falakat, és a törmelékből új lakhelyet épít magának. És ez jó így, mert amíg előbbi elem Einstein és a kvantumfizikusok óta veszített aktualitásából, addig ez utóbbi örök. És az örök könyvek azok bizony a legjobb könyvek.

[Tentatively, Convenience · Rating 4 out of 5]

I think I read 2 of Koestler's bks. This must've been one of them b/c I remember the subject matter but I reckon it's possible that there's another Koestler bk w/ a long section on Kepler (as this one has). Anyway, in some respects, this must've been an important bk to me b/c it wd've been one of the 1st I wd've read on 'heretics' - ie: people persecuted by Christian Gangstas for having a mind & using it for something other than Christian hegemony. Alas, this is the only bk I've read in my astronomy section. Obviously, I 'need' to catch up on the subject! But, then, who can see the stars anymore? I live in the city.

Strangely, I don't remember being that impressed w/ this. Maybe it was too drily scientific for me. Maybe I just didn't get it. In retrospect it seems like a fascinating subject. Then, though, I was more interested in art & literature - so it's probably remarkable that I slogged thru a 600+ page bk of this nature. Looking at it now I realize I shd add it to the read-again-if you-discover-you're-immortal category.

[Ali · Rating 3 out of 5]

I would devide my life to before and after reading Koestler. Reading Koestler for the first time, just released, Koestler changed me to a totally different person. He was a man of a generation who witnessed final disaster of civil war in Spain and descending and demolishing of hope by communism in Soviet, while confronting the invasion of Fashism in Europe. He explained his generation’s pain and frustration as a most brave looser, not sophisticated but very simple. The best description of the time is when he says; The sun of the age of reason was setting down. Arrow in the Blue together with The Invisible Writing are kind of autobiography of first 35 years of Koestler's life.

این اثر کستلر با عنوان “خوابگردها" توسط منوچهر روحانی ترجمه شده. من چاپ دوم آن را دیده ام که در 1361 منتشر شده است.

[Erik · Rating 4 out of 5]

Great on Kepler and the Galileo trial, far too light on ancients and Newton. Kepler's difficult path to the three laws is detailed in full, especially the breakthrough to the first law which is not often described elsewhere. Galileo's opponents were not the nitwits we believed them to be. But ancient science was a much more interesting phenomenon than Koestler realizes. He mouths the same old criticisms of Plato and Aristotle, essentially blaming them for the beliefs of their later followers. In particular, the role of Plato's Academy and Aristotle's Lyceum in framing the deductive structure of mathematics and the axiomatic system is ignored. Also the Alexandrian museum was started by members of the Lyceum.

[Benjamin · Rating 2 out of 5]

Koestler is great at his analysis of historic science. His presentation of Pythagoras and Galileo had insights worth reading about. However, his conclusions were easily determined in the first few chapters. His thoughts as an evolutionary presuppositionalist clouded his revelations and rendered them anticlimactic. Despite some good thinking and talking points, trudging through his bias was a chore.

[Tintarella · Rating 5 out of 5]

کتاب ۵ فصل داره:
۱. عصر حماسی
۲. دوره‌ی تاریک میانه
۳. کشیش کم‌جرأت
۴. آب‌خیز
۵. انشعاب راه‌ها
.
یه پی دی اف از کتاب پیدا کردم که ۱۴۰ صفحه‌ست و شامل دو فصل اول (تا رنسانس) و فصل‌های طولانی بعدی رو توش نداره که همون رو خوندم.
چیزای خیلی جالبی توی کتاب هست، مثلاً این‌که فیثاغورسی‌ها در اون زمان به یه نوع نظریه زمین‌مرکزی قائل بودند. خط سِیری که از فیثاغورس شروع می‌شه و با عبور از فیلولائوس و هراکلیدس، نهایتاً به آریستارخوسِ ساموسی می‌رسه که متوجه می‌شه که سیاره‌های دیگه به خورشید وابسته‌اند و نه زمین. از طرفی جریان دیگه‌ای وجود داشته که از افلاطون و ارسطو می‌گذره و تاکیدش روی زمین‌مرکزی بوده. (مثلاً ارسطو برای اثبات این قضیه تعداد کره‌ها در فضا رو به بالای ۵۰ تا می‌رسونه (آدم یاد هسته‌های مجازی سی‌پی‌یوهای جدید میفته) تا بتونه علت بی‌نظمی حرکتی زهره و عطارد نسبت به زمین رو در مقایسه با ماه درک کنه. کستلر این ایده رو مطرح می‌کنه که افلاطون و ارسطو در دوره‌ی حضیض تمدن و تفکر یونانی قرار داشتند و وقتی پای آکادمی بازی وسط کشیده می‌شه، جمود بر تفکر حاکم می‌شه.)
تا قرن ۱۲، تفکر افلاطون حاکم قرون وسطی بوده و از ۱۲ تا ۱۶ ارسطو. با این حال کستلر تاکید داره که این رابطه تماماً خطی و مشخص نبوده (این اعتقاد که در دوران میانه شوربایی از نظریات افلاطون و ارسطو سیطره داشته (آگوستین قدیس می‌گه تاثیر من رو فراموش نکنید.) رو قبلاً توی کتاب «فرد و کیهان در فلسفه‌ی رنسانس» کاسیرر هم خوانده بودم) و معتقده در دوران قرون وسطای ابتدائی هر دو تفکر زمین مرکزی و خورشید مرکزی وجود داشته و عجیب اینه که رفته رفته با توجه به متن سِفرِ پیدایش و توجیه اون، نظریه‌ی زمین مسطح هم مطرح می‌شه و علم در این نقطه از یونانِ ۲۰۰۰ سال پیش هم عقب‌تر بوده... توی قرن ۱۶ دانشمندها بالاخره یاد می‌گیرن که بهتره یه جای توجیه یونانی‌ها از روش‌هاشون استفاده کنند (تولد علوم تجربی) و هر نوع تقدیسِ افلاطون/ارسطو/آگوستین ئی رو کنار بگذارند. خب انگار داریم به انقلاب صنعتی نزدیک می‌شیم

[Mark · Rating 3 out of 5]

Copernicus, who argued against a geocentric worldview, wanted to keep his book and information private, out the hands of masses and only give it to those initiated. However, his colleagues believed otherwise, and would ridicule him for keeping it secret. His belief was according to the ancient scriptures and Masonic worldview, but everyone else were already on a different movement. Why this clash? He wanted to keep the foundations unspoiled, while colleagues were on a different beat, that of, seemingly, appeasing crowds. I would tend to agree more with Copernicus, until the extent that one’s life may be in danger of being cut short and so they would need to give some information out earlier than planned, if anything. In those days Latin was the official academic language, which not everyone could read, and usually reading was a privilege of those who weren’t peasants. I think that says a lot and brings certain perspectives into context. However, again, I think all information has been known for some time, and the world is only a stage with pieces being moved. Aristotle and Ptolemy’s models relied on epicycles, but it was Copernicus who uncovered Aristarchus’s Ancient Greek heliocentric models. They were however mostly ignored until Galileo used them, which is when the Holy Roman Empire began to take them serious and ban them, placing the books on a Prohibited List and punishing proponents. It wasn’t until later they were accepted.

While this is stuff we learn in elementary school, some of the details are only in books or able to be obtained by word of mouth.

To step away from the concept of “things I learned,” specifically from this book, is that Johannes Kepler took a study under Tycho Brahe.
From this book, most people don’t know, we learn that another Aristotle-Socrates-and-Plato like partnership occurred with Copernicus and Rheticus. However, trust didn’t run deep by the time Copernicus’ book was published. His motivation may have been to just give Copernicus a better public image.
He was hesitant to publish his book. And it was based on a Ptolemaic model, which expanded the Aristotelian one. He may have not been entirely serious about the model besides it being an effort to advance the science, however futile.
Einstein and Bohr also formed one such group in the 1920’s, as this tradition was continued with such conferences as the Solvay.
Let me clarify further my stepping away from the “things I learned from reading this book” concept: I studied astronomy in college, at both university and community college, so some of the information in this book is known. I rely on m, mostly, two college textbooks from the courses and other supplemental material such as, for physics, Hawkings’s standard A Brief History of Time and A Briefer History of Time books, which I sadly gave away and don’t have anymore.
It’s also reiterated here that homo and bisexuals a like were useful in the teaching of the sciences usually through a professorship. Thus while Copernicus had his faults, he was useful to the system by being willing to teach. This implies a negative view of gender roles, as if the masculine side of society finds no use in academia as some find sports a waste of time.

[Mbogo J · Rating 4 out of 5]

The first half, on whose strength this rating is based, was a masterpiece. It hit the sweet spot in prose, content and more so in clarity. Koestler included an often ignored line of thought; how religion influenced early understanding of the universe. Since the divorce of religion and science, this fact has been conveniently ignored resulting into a one sided story. The idea of the universe with walls can be traced to the Bible, similar to the idea that heavenly bodies having ladders and pulleys can be traced to the angels visiting Jacob. Without this background, the holders of these views sound like deluded idiots. In addition to this, in the first half Koestler traced the views of the universe from the ancient world, the middle ages through the Ionian school up until the age of Newton.

The second half,which makes up the bulk of the book, will depend on your tastes. If you are more interested in the people behind the ideas then you will enjoy it but if you are like me who is more interested in the ideas with marginal interest in the people behind it, then you might not enjoy it so much. To further his thesis on which the book draws its title from, the idea of the early universe 'fathers' making cancelling errors which somehow resulted into the right thing, Koestler told us about their lives and in great detail. We are told about Copernicus, how he was reminded a million times to get rid of his mistress, we learn about how Tycho was stingy with his data, how Keppler might have had slight delusions on his reality and who will forget the controversial Galileo who called people who did not believe in Copernicus' heliocentricity half humans. This history is all good but when it becomes too much the tide turns. We are given letter correspondences in verbatim, dozens of letters, book excerpts are quoted in great detail, copies of Galileo's judgement are quoted, large chunks in verbatim! It will take a very interested soul to remain hooked on the subject.

Unfortunately this deluge of information vindicated a hypothesis I have, any non fiction book no matter how good, once it exceeds 450+ pages, it turns into a wind bag spewing hot air to pad the extra sheets. To guard against this and the 'large' books gumming up my reading list, I normally read them concurrent with other "friendlier" books and over several months (i read this over a four month period). I would advise the reader to do the same, if you read it as your primary read there is a good chance you will shelve it after the umpteenth letter telling Copernicus to get rid of his mistress.

[Ehsan Ebrahimian · Rating 4 out of 5]

کتابی فوق العاده برای آنهایی که فکر می کنند دانشمندان ماشینی منطقی هستند که ورودی آنها مشاهده، عمل آنها استنتاج و خروجی آنها علم هستش!

کتاب جزئیات ملال آور زیادی داره از زندگی کوپرنیک و کپلر و این خواندنش رو مشکل میکنه از این گذشته بعضی از ادعاهای کتاب مخصوصا در مورد گالیله شاید محل مناقشه باشه و کینه ورزانه اما طرح جالبی داره در مورد این که تاریخ علم شاید اون چیزی که به ما گفتن و ما فکر می کنیم نباشه و از این جهت بسیار برای من هیجان انگیز بود.

[Liedzeit Liedzeit · Rating 5 out of 5]

When I was fourteen or fifteen I thought I had a pretty good idea about the accomplishments of the great scientists. Copernikus was the greatest of them all. Because he was the first who dared to put the sun into the center of the universe, he singlehandedly dragged mankind out of the middle ages into the present. He put theology into second place and science in first. He was scared though and only published his book when he was on his death bed. He gave the world not only a new cosmology but also a new concept: revolution!

Then there was Galileo Galilei. Who proved that Copernicus was right, who invented the telescope and established modern physics. And he was as brave as he was brilliant. Although when put on trial by the stupid representatives of the Catholic church he stepped back. But not really Eppur si muove and all that. He was very nearly a martyr.

And in between was Kepler, famous for his three laws but not really in a league with the other two guys. And planets moving on an ellipsis? What is so great about this?

Since then I had to change my views a bit (especially about Galileo) but was still in for a surprise when reading Koestler. I learned many things. Copernicus did not put the sun into the center, but the center of Earth’s orbit (outside the sun), his system was not simpler than Ptolomeys, he needed more epicycles. And so on. But mainly, that it was Kepler who was the greatest mind. It is in fact not the heliocentric system that was brand new but the fact that planets did not move in circles and that their speed was not constant. And Galileo is presented, let us say, not in the brightest of lights. Not only did he behave badly, he was foolishly wrong on many points, e.g. with his theory of tides, but mainly for ignoring Kepler’s insights.

The best thing is that Koestler admits having his own biases. In the case of Galileo, he judges the man by his correspondence with Kepler. And that is the main thing one can learn by reading this book. Although we know a lot about these men it is sometimes simple facts that influence our view. And this is true not only for individuals. One intriguing thing I learned is that Kepler’s mother was very nearly burned as a witch (and much nearer actual torture than Galileo) and that in a span of 20 years in her village Weil der Stadt out of 200 families 38 witches were burned! (If Koestler is really to be trusted here.)

The main subject of the book is Koestler’s view of progress. There is no straight line. The influence of Aristotle and Plato shifted a number of times during history. Great results were made by making mistakes that canceled each other out.

Koestler was not a scientist but a journalist. Which is a good thing in this case. He knows how to write and when reading you are always aware (and so is he himself) that maybe he will be stretching truth to make a point.

For a book on science that is 70 years old, it is amazing how much it still has to say (at least to us laymen). For one thing, he gives us a view on the history of science that very nearly makes the work of Thomas Kuhn redundant. 9/10

[Liquidlasagna · Rating 2 out of 5]

not great
with a few pecular biases and viewpoints

think of it as a crappy Thomas Kuhn, a dozen months or so before Thomas Kuhn

basically scientific discovery is more like zombies sleepwalking
and it's a bit like music, the artist doesn't know where his creativity flows from. and they aren't aware of the implications of their work.

Which seems more like a three page magazine article

---

The odd thing is Koestler was completely wrong about how widely read Copernicus' work was, which is pretty much the neatest thing about this book.

---

wiki

By then Copernicus's work was nearing its definitive form, and rumors about his theory had reached educated people all over Europe.

Despite urgings from many quarters, Copernicus delayed publication of his book, perhaps from fear of criticism—a fear delicately expressed in the subsequent dedication of his masterpiece to Pope Paul III. Scholars disagree on whether Copernicus's concern was limited to possible astronomical and philosophical objections, or whether he was also concerned about religious objections.

Successors

Despite the near universal acceptance later of the heliocentric idea (though not the epicycles or the circular orbits), Copernicus's theory was originally slow to catch on.

Scholars hold that sixty years after the publication of The Revolutions there were only around 15 astronomers espousing Copernicanism in all of Europe:

"Thomas Digges and Thomas Harriot in England; Giordano Bruno and Galileo Galilei in Italy; Diego Zuniga in Spain; Simon Stevin in the Low Countries; and in Germany, the largest group—Georg Joachim Rheticus, Michael Maestlin, Christoph Rothmann (who may have later recanted), and Johannes Kepler."

Additional possibilities are Englishman William Gilbert, along with Achilles Gasser, Georg Vogelin, Valentin Otto, and Tiedemann Giese.

.......

Arthur Koestler, in his popular book The Sleepwalkers, asserted that Copernicus's book had not been widely read on its first publication.

This claim was trenchantly criticised by Edward Rosen,[s] and has been decisively disproved by Owen Gingerich, who examined nearly every surviving copy of the first two editions and found copious marginal notes by their owners throughout many of them. Gingerich published his conclusions in 2004 in The Book Nobody Read.

[Robert · Rating 2 out of 5]

I take issue with some of the sources Koestler used here, most of which are secondary sources. And quoting from Encyclopedia Britannica is no way to earn accolades from critical historians. Also, long-winded and detailed passages concerning the movements and eating habits of his scientist-heros fail to add anything significant to Koestler's arguments. WE get, for example, over 20 pages describing the hand-off of Copurnicus' manuscript 'Book of Revolutions' to his protege Rheticus, and another 10 or so on getting the damn thing printed...I lost interest after the first two. And if, as Koestler asserts, the writing and insertion of an unauthorized preface to the book by the printer Osiander of Nuremburg constitutes "the greatest scandal in the history of science," then Dan Quayle may be listed among the most effective American statesmen in US history. After nearly 100 dense pages on the various non-entities surrounding Copernicus, a man who seems to have spent most of his life avoiding real work and contributed nothing really new by the way of astronomy or scientific thought, one wonders what exactly motivated Koestler to write this book. Of course there is prurient interest in reading about how difficult it was for Copernicus and his fellow canons to get rid of their mistresses during the Chruch's reform movement in the mid 16th century, but one wonders what such alleys of social history add to any deeper understanding of 'man's changing view of the universe' - it's always been difficult to get girlfriends to leave your house; nothing new there.

[Frank · Rating 4 out of 5]

Astronomy plays a special role in the history of science. Its lineage goes back to the early Mesopotamians, and its development traces out man's changing view of the universe and his place in it. We see this in action in AK's detailed and absorbing biographies of Copernicus, Kepler and Galileo (plus abbreviated biographies of Brahe and Newton), as each struggled to grow beyond the outlook of his age.

These biographies are married to a recapitulation of the philosophical world of the antique Greeks and an epilogue with fascinating reflections on the psychological and societal underpinnings of creativity, which AK takes up in his later books: The Act of Creation and Ghost in the Machine. (At moments, one thinks of Thomas Kuhn, as well as Ian McGilchrist).

[Jimmy Ele · Rating 5 out of 5]

Amazing book which chronicles the way that humans have viewed the universe in which they reside, since the Ancient Greeks. It deals with the works of Copernicus, Tycho de Brahe, Kepler, and Galileo in depth. It ends with Newton and an analysis of the new synthesis that occurred with his works. It details the intellectual, political, and religious climates respective to each of them. The manner in which they reached their conclusions is very detailed, especially Kepler's methods of inquiry. The book ends with a modern epilogue which briefly details the state of science and religion today. A highly recommended read, if you are interested in any of the above mentioned.

[M.R. Dowsing · Rating 2 out of 5]

I had a good crack at this but decided to bail out. I think the problem was that I was reading it more because I like the author than out of any deep interest in the subject matter. I'd enjoyed a couple of Koestler's other science books ('The Case Of The Midwife Toad' and 'The Roots Of Coincidence') but this one felt long-winded and repetitive in comparison. However, I suspect that this is probably a very good book if you're sufficiently interested in the subject, so don't let me put you off!

[Laura L. Van Dam · Rating 4 out of 5]

3 estrellas y media.
Bastante interesante y bien narrado.
Me salteé algunos capítulos que ya había leído con anterioridad en una biografía de Kepler.
Parece bien documentado, aunque algunas afirmaciones me hacen ruido. Un profesor que tuve en la universidad recomendaba este libro, aunque libros sobre el tema que escribió e investigó él mismo, divergen en varios puntos y opiniones con lo que afirma Koestler.