Recap
The middle ages, science and math were utilitarian in nature, used in the context of religious requirements. Technology was much more necessary and practiced. Science was at best a hobby, a pass time, probably existing as magic and tricks. Authority was the last word and nature was thought also to follow that authority of god.
Discussion on Assignment #1
Several members complained on the feedback i had given them – provide numbers and stats on the controversies and rumors written up. And many said that there could not be found. However, i wonder if we could just throw up our hands and say this anymore? This is not the medieval era, or not even 1990s when there was no internet in India! But also supporting the arguments i see that given the limitations of time and interest, one may not be able to really go the distance and do actual research. So instead i think i will be OK with mentioning of research questions, what kind of data is of interest, what one should look for and so on.
The science revolution –
After looking at the slow centuries of intellectual development in Europe, called the middle ages in the past session, we now are in the 16th century. An ambitious populace, clergymen, men of rationality begin asking questions, questioning previously sacred ideas and harboring the most criminal of all – bold thoughts. It was as if the civilization there was reacting to the slow dogmatic grind of the church. Over dramatization?
Again, instead of me reading out to the students i tore apart an essay and asked the 4 tolerant ones (remember that class strength is 10, and now its less than half, quite an effect of teaching style i presume) to join it back. The essay was: The birth of modern science by Stevan L. Goldman. Again, there could be better more detailed essays on this topic, but i found this satisfactory as an introduction.
Here’s a summary:
- The author argues that the science revolution came in as a surprise, that no one predicted it and even now, after knowing so much about that period it does not seem obvious that it should have happened then and there.
- “The pieces were all there. What happened in the 17th century is that a glue was added to hold all of those pieces together, and that glue seems to be the idea of method.”
- A key portion talks about amalgamation of ancient Greek concepts of knowledge and natural reasons behind natural events with a high level of mathematics ready to be used as a tool.
- According to the author it was not a specific scientific method that brought it all, rather that an awareness and sensitivity to the scientific methods possible came about. On this a discussion was begin – what is the color of the table? Everyone agreed it was green. But that is in English, what about Tamil, Bengali and Marathi? So we had some talk on how languages meet. But does science also see the tables color just as another word? VIBGYOR was talked about and how the wavelength of green is precisely known and there goes much of the subjectivity. But what about the different shades of green each member of the class was observing given the different sitting positions, asked RR? UB countered correctly that it was only different intensities and not the color that was different for different observers. I asked if a scientific method can exist which would make the observer and observing instrument and circumstances irrelevant to the outcome of the experiment? Everyone disagreed, but i think its possible. Could you say that a table reflects green radiations of 540nm provide you are on this particular observing position with white light on this position? In retrospect i think i kind of see RR’s point.
- I particularly loved this statement: “How can we have universal, necessary, and certain knowledge of nature if our only access to nature is experience, and experience is particular, concrete, and continually changing?” kind of extends on the previous discussion on the color of table.
- Concluding statement: “To call it a revolution is fundamentally misleading because it makes light of the evolution in which a sensitivity to method and the idea of knowledge played a key role in allowing people to integrate all of these pieces. They were lying around, so to speak, and could be pulled together and were pulled together by the people who founded modern science.” – basically arguing that stuff evolved with help of “method” into a coherent movement. A fire was lit on the available straws of ideas, work or pioneers already in the field and of knowledge traditions already in practice in the universities of that time.