Science and Inquiry discussion

The group selected The Swerve: How the World Became Modern to read for October 2012. You can use this thread for comments, questions, and discussions.

Remember, October is just the target. You can begin the discussion whenever you are inclined and continue as long as there is something to say.

I read this book earlier this year and absolutely loved it.

Also read The Nature of Things, and - if anyone's wondering - I don't think it's crucial in order to enjoy this book. Swerve will tell you all you need to know about Nature of Things; to be honest, the text itself gets a little repetitive.

Good to know. Thanks, Alex, I hope you're right. I think I read The Nature of Things in college many, many years ago, but I don't remember a thing about it. I also recently read a few excerpts in Hitchens' The Portable Atheist: Essential Readings for the Nonbeliever, but it wasn't very much.

I'm in for this one! I've been wanting to read it for awhile, so this group read is a good excuse.

Have been out of the country and this is a big book. I am ready to start reading now!

This is starting very strong.

I quite enjoyed this one, though I do feel the subtitle overshot it a bit.

The books certainly claims and makes a pretty solid case for the influence on modern thinkers that The Nature Of Things had, but he doesn't make any claim that it is entirely causative.

Even so, I enjoy anything that brings a few old ideas back into light. A chance for people (particularly westerners) to discover that many of the ideas one may think one must go east for (to buddhism, for example), can be found in early philosophy right here in the west. Between Stoicism and Epicureanism, there are some fantastic ideas that were buried far too early.

Good point, Daniel: I agree that he overstates his case a little. He makes the point that Nature of Things is influential and underappreciated nicely, but I'm not sold that it totally changed everything.

I struggle to call this a science read. It is more of a history read to me. I enjoyed it and it is interesting but it seems more opinion than science.

Agreed with that too.

I was expecting "history of science," but so far it's more history; which is fine with me. (I read a ton of history.)

I agree with Daniel, Patricrk and others. This is not a science book--it is an interesting history book. And I agree that the claim totally changed everything is over-reaching.

Coincidentally, after reading The Swerve, I read another book titled 1434 The Year a Magnificent Chinese Fleet Sailed to Italy and Ignited the Renaissance. This book is much more about science and technology. The author makes a very convincing case that a Chinese fleet sailed around the world, and brought encyclopedias and intellectuals to Europe. The influence on Europe was quite strong; the Chinese brought astronomy, mathematics, geography, philosophy, art, and many many technologies, like navigation, agricultural machines, tools, printing presses, firearms, and on and on. You can watch a short video about it on the author's web site.

Hate to break it to you, David, but that book's been pretty thoroughly scoffed out of the park.

I enjoyed Louise Levathes' When China Ruled the Seas: The Treasure Fleet of the Dragon Throne, 1405-1433, a more careful history of the great Zheng He and his accomplishments.

Erm, I haven't read 1434, but I started the same author's 1421: The Year China Discovered America, which is appallingly written as well as being of highly dubious historical reasoning.

ETA: I say started, as I was unable to finish it due to the writing, which I just couldn't tolerate.

A good book on technology in the medieval period is Cathedral, Forge & Waterwheel: Technology & Invention in the Middle Ages.

Alex wrote: "Hate to break it to you, David, but that book's been pretty thoroughly scoffed out of the park.

I enjoyed Louise Levathes' When China Ruled the Seas: The Treasure Fleet of the Dragon Throne, 1405-..."

Alex, obviously, the book is controversial. I read the links you mentioned--they're rather short--I'm not convinced yet, either way.

I likewise found 1421 intriguing if somewhat alternative in its style and outlook.
The swerve was not as I expected either but very enjoyable for what it actually was (leaving aside the claims it made). From a science perspective, does Lucretius text have much value if the claims (about atoms and evolution) are not based on physical experiments, but instead, upon philosophy? I was not sure whether the author should have been content to accept Lucretius' atoms as the same atoms modern science has discovered them to be.

Hey man, you do your thing. Don't mean to ruin your fun.

Angus, I think that's a worthy point. It's kinda cool how much Lucretius guessed right on, but I'm not sure it should be given much more weight than "Ha, nice guess!" And a high five.

Also, there are just a ton of things in the text that he guessed way wrong on. I don't remember them off hand but I think I noted some as I was reading if folks are real interested. So Greenblatt is doing a bit of cherry picking here.

I am really enjoying The Swerve: How the World Became Modern - just going through it slowly due to other pressing business (around 45% now).

I agree with much of what has been said here - the book is more a history of ideas and philosophy than a treatise about science. I also think the claim in the title is overstated. But with that said, I think Greenblatt has done a wonderful job of scholarship and storytelling here, and has made a compelling case for the power and beauty of the Epicurean view.

I hope to discuss a few of the core ideas after I have read further. One example - I am really interested in the historical foundations and context of human Inquiry, and think those issues are consistent with the core concepts (and name) of our Group. I am also picking up some interesting points from member reviews, and would like to come back to a few of those.

I've just started. Am a bit late to this discussion, but liking it so far.

Angus wrote: "From a science perspective, does Lucretius text have much value if the claims (about atoms and evolution) are not based on physical experiments, but instead, upon philosophy? I was not sure whether the author should have been content to accept Lucretius' atoms as the same atoms modern science has discovered them to be..."

This is a really interesting point, Angus. I would think that the claims were immensely valuable, if they later guided the thinking of those who did the physical experiments (this seems likely from Greenblatt’s discussion). Taken together, the claims are very impressive and tie together a wide variety of phenomena, in ways that are similar to modern scientific theories. The insights, in turn, were so powerful that a philosophy of life could be based upon them.

As Alex said (and Greenblatt mentioned), Lucretius had a lot of wrong ideas as well. On this point, I was impressed some years ago by a segment from a Linus Pauling interview. He said that doing high-quality science does not require that one have only good ideas – in his case, he just had a lot of ideas, some good and some not. The key was to have a mechanism for sorting out the good ones from the bad.

In the context of our group, a key component of Inquiry is the test of competing ideas against each other. Well-designed experiments do this for scientific questions in modern times. In ancient times, no one could have direct knowledge of the existence or structure of atoms, or the ways they could combine to make molecules and larger objects. But Epicurus/Lucretius, while wrong about other conjectures, had a series of powerful insights about these building blocks and their interactions. When more sophisticated methods were available, they would provide the supporting evidence.

Another way of looking at these issues is to consider Daniel’s point from Message #7. Greenblatt does not show a causal link between Poggio’s rediscovery of Lucretius’ poem and the series of scientific discoveries that followed. For me, this raises several interesting questions:

1) Was the notion of atoms as fundamental building blocks in discussion at the time of Poggio’s rediscovery? (I don’t know)
2) Could the suppression of scientific inquiry by Church doctrine have continued indefinitely if Poggio had not rediscovered the poem, such that the scientific discoveries would not have occurred? (not knowable, but Greenblatt seems to suggest that it might have)
3) Were other lines of evidence in place, so that the nature of atoms as fundamental building blocks would likely have been shown in due course without Poggio’s rediscovery? (I don’t know)

As always, I invite comments/corrections on these points.

I think the poem's idea of atoms as fundamental building blocks, as merely a side-bar; it had little influence on science during the Renaissance. The reason is that the idea of atoms did not directly influence science until much later. Until the idea directly entered scientific theories and experiments in chemistry, did it really become important. (Not until the 18th century?)

David wrote: "I think the poem's idea of atoms as fundamental building blocks, as merely a side-bar; it had little influence on science during the Renaissance...."

Thanks very much for the perspectives, David. Following your lead, I did a little digging and found this timeline for atomic structure:

http://atomictimeline.net/index.php

As Greenblatt said, Democritus gets credit for the term and basic concept. Newton and Dalton had early proposals, but experimental data came slowly over many decades.

No good evidence there for a direct link to the poem. But the logical thread could have been connected through the controversies over atomism (vs. church doctrine) that Greenblatt discussed in relation to the poem. It might be interesting to learn more about the intellectual roots of atomism for the early scientific proponents.

And...who was it who really went at scientific theory? Galileo? Descartes? Gilbert? Whatever - it's worth giving props to those who were trying to do science by wholly different methods, because the idea of reproducible, verifiable experiments hadn't been invented yet. I mean, bummer, because scientific theory is great, but isn't it terrific that some of these dudes managed to come up with ideas all in their heads that, centuries later, with scientific theory, we verified? I think that's pretty neat.

Alex wrote: "And...who was it who really went at scientific theory? Galileo? Descartes? Gilbert? Whatever - it's worth giving props to those who were trying to do science by wholly different methods, because the idea of reproducible, verifiable experiments hadn't been invented yet..."

Excellent points Alex, and I definitely agree.

Alex wrote: "And...who was it who really went at scientific theory? Galileo? Descartes? Gilbert? Whatever - it's worth giving props to those who were trying to do science by wholly different methods, because th..."

Reminds me of Ingenious Pursuits: Building the Scientific Revolution, which is a good read.

Ha...I went to add it to my to-read list but it's already there, with a note: "Rec'd by Susanna." :)

Susanna wrote: "Reminds me of Ingenious Pursuits: Building the Scientific Revolution, which is a good read..."

I had it on my to-read list too! Thanks for the rec - it does sound very appropriate for the questions we have been asking.

I got stuck about half-way through this book, I feel like I am still reading the introductory chapter. I think I will move onto the November read.

I liked this one (but I am by training a historian); though not as much as the same author's Will in the World: How Shakespeare Became Shakespeare.

I finally finished The Swerve: How the World Became Modern. I really enjoyed it, but I also felt slightly disappointed. I'm not very familiar with the Renaissance or many of the movements discussed -- humanism, atomism, Epicureanism, and it was fascinating. But I felt that Greenblatt's concentration on the impact of De Rerum Naturum on a few selected people left me with little understanding of the period generally. I think he did a little better history with the Greek and Roman periods which resulted in the poem. Now I'm going to have to find a more comprehensive history of the Renaissance to read.

As for whether the author proved the impact of Lucretius on making the world "modern", I agree the subtitle may be hyperbole, but I think Greenblatt's view is that it was a more subtle but indelible influence. Remember that a "swerve" is a minimal change in direction. I think point 2 in Jim's comment 20 is probably pretty close to the mark. Lucretius was being read by most of the scholars and intellectuals of the next few centuries and it encouraged them to question established thinking.

Betsy wrote: " Remember that a "swerve" is a minimal change in direction. "

Not when I do it!

My changes in direction are never minimal. (I have balance issues.)

I really enjoyed your comment 30, Betsy, and thanks for referring to my earlier point. I like your perspectives on the subtle but telling influence of Lucretius on "modern" thought, and I think your views fit well with Greenblatt's treatment.

With respect to my earlier mention of suppression of scientific inquiry by the Church, I think it is important to mention that powerful human institutions of all kinds can be prone to such abuses - it just happens to have been the Church in this historical instance.

We can all think of examples in more recent history where "wrong-headed" ideas were suppressed even when they were later shown to be correct. "Jewish science" in Hitler's Germany comes to mind. Biological sciences in the Soviet Union were (my understanding) held back by ideological preference for Lamarckian ideas about inheritance of acquired traits, over Darwinian natural selection.

@Alex and Susanna - I have 'swerve/balance issues' too, but hopefully I can get back on course, at least some of the time.