#history of science tag

[astriiformes]

Hi, i just learned about the scientific revolution in europe at school. Can you tell me why you dont think scientific revolutions exist? im curious!

So I feel like I have to lead with the fact that I'm kind of arguing two different points when I say scientific revolutions aren't really a thing

One is that I'm objecting to a specific, extremely foundational theory of scientific revolutions that was put forth by the philosopher Thomas Kuhn, which I think really misrepresents how science is actually practiced in the name of fitting things to a nice model. The other is that I think the fundamental problem with the idea is that it's too vague to effectively describe an actual process that happens.

It's certainly true that there are important advances in science that get referred to as "revolutions" that fundamentally changed their fields -- the shift from the Ptolemaic model of the Solar System to the Copernican one, Darwin's theory of evolution, etc. But there are historians of science (who I tend to agree with) that feel that terming these advances "revolutions" ignores the fact that science is an continuous, accretional process, and somewhat sensationalizes the process of scientific change in the name of celebrating particular scientists or theories over others.

Kuhn's model that he put forth in The Structure of Scientific Revolutions (which is one of those books that itself stirred a great deal of activity in a number of fields) suggests science evolves via what he called "paradigm shifts," where new ideas become fundamentally incompatible with the old model or way of doing things, causing a total overturn in the way scientists see the world, and establishing a new paradigm -- which will eventually cave to another when it, too, ceases to function effectively as a model. This theory became extraordinarily popular when it was published, but it's somewhat telling who it's remained popular with. Economists, political scientists, and literary theorists still use Kuhn, but historians of science, in my experience at least, see his work as historically significant but incompatible with how history is actually studied.

Kuhn posits that between paradigm shifts there are periods of "normal science" where paradigms are unquestioned and anomalies in the current model are largely ignored, until they reach a critical mass and cause a scientific revolution. In reality though, there is often real discussion of those anomalies, and I think the scientific process is not nearly so content to ignore them as Kuhn thinks. Throughout history, we see people expressing a real discontent with unsolved mysteries the current scientific model fails to explain, and glossing over those simply because the individuals in question didn't manage to formulate breakthrough theories to "solve" those problems props up the somewhat infamous "great men" model of history of science, where we focus only on the most famous people in the field as significant instead of acknowledging that science is a social enterprise and no research happens in a vacuum!

Beyond disagreeing with Kuhn specifically though, I think the idea of scientific revolutions vastly simplifies how science evolves and changes, and is ultimately a really ahistorical way of thinking about shifts in thinking. Take the example of the shift from Ptolemaic, geocentric thought to the heliocentric Copernican model of the solar system. When does this supposed "revolution" in thought actually start, and when does it "end" by becoming firmly established? You could argue that the publication of Copernicus' De revolutionibus orbium coelestium in 1543 was the beginning of the shift in thinking -- but of course, then you have the problem of asking where Copernicus' ideas came from in the first place.

The "great men" model of history would suggest Copernicus was a uniquely talented individual who managed to suggest something no one else had ever put forth, but realistically, he was influenced by the scientists who came before him, just like anyone else. There were real objections to the Ptolemaic model during the medieval era! One of the most famous problems in medieval astronomy was the fact that assuming a geocentric model makes the behavior of the planets seem really weird to an observer on Earth, referred to as retrograde motion, which had to be solved with a complicated system of epicycles that people knew wasn't quite working, even if they weren't able to put together exactly why. There were even ancient Greek astronomers who suggested that the sun was at the center of the solar system, going all the way back to Aristarchus of Samos who lived from around 310-230 BCE!

Putting an end point to the Copernican revolution poses similar challenges. Some people opt to suggest that what Copernicus started, either Galileo or Newton finished (which in and of itself means the "revolution" lasted around 100-150 years), but are we defining the shift in terms of new theories, or the consensus of the scientific community? The latter is much harder to pinpoint, and in my opinion as an aspiring historian of science, also much more important. Again, science doesn't happen in a vacuum. Copernicus, Galileo, and Newton may be more famous than their peers, but that doesn't mean the rest of the Renaissance scientific community didn't matter.

Ultimately it's a matter of simple models like Kuhn's (or other definitions of scientific revolutions) being insufficient to explain the complexity of history. Both because science is a complex endeavor, and because it isn't independent from the rest of history. Sure, it's genuinely amazing to consider that Copernicus' De revolutionibus orbium coelestium and the anatomist Andreas Vesalius' similarly influential De humani corporis fabrica were published the same year, and it says something about the intellectual climate of the time. But does it say something about science only, or is it also worth remembering that the introduction of typographic printing a century prior drastically changed how scientists communicated and whose ideas stuck and were remembered? On a similar note, we credit Darwin with suggesting the theory of evolution (and I could write a similarly long response just on the many, many influences in geology and biology both that went into his formulation of said theory), but what does it say that Alfred Russel Wallace independently came up with the theory of natural selection around the same time? Is it sheer coincidence, or does it have more to do with conversations that were already happening in the scientific community both men belonged to that predated the publication of the Origin?

I think that the concept of scientific revolutions is an important part of the history of the history of science, and has its place when talking about how we conceive of certain periods of history. But I'm a skeptic of it being a particularly accurate model, largely on the grounds of objecting to the "great men" model of history and the idea that shifts in thinking can be boiled down to a few important names and dates.

There's a famous Isaac Newton quote (which, fittingly, did not originate with Newton himself, but can be traced back even further to several medieval thinkers) in which he states "If I have seen further it is by standing on the shoulders of Giants." I would argue that science, as an endeavor, is far more like standing on the shoulder of several hundred thousand other people in a trenchcoat. This social element of research is exactly why it's so hard to pull apart any one particular revolution, even when fairly revolutionary theories change the direction of the research that's happening. Ideas belong to a long evolutionary chain, and even if it occasionally goes through periods of punctuated equilibrium, dividing that history into periods of revolution and stagnancy ignores the rich scientific tradition of the "in-between" periods, and the contributions of scientists who never became famous for their work.

[facts-i-just-made-up]

Why pool make eyes STING please?

Your eyes sting in the pool because of chlorine. Chlorination of pools has been normal since biblical times to prevent bacterial and insect egg growth. It was first noted at the Pool of Bethesda in Jerusalem. Being Bethesda it was of course full of bugs, so to keep it clean, they poured in chlorine (known back then as "The Bile of Samael") to keep the water clear.

Soon after, people noted healing properties to the pools, and they became a pilgrimage site. Far from superstition, the chlorine was metastatic, entering the bodies of those present and having an antibiotic effect. Thus a pool's healing force can be predicted from having a high meta-chlorine count.

[sciencewife]

Caroline, assistant to Cave Johnson, testifies at the Senate hearings on missing astronauts, 1968.

"You really think Caroline would do that? Just go to the senate and tell lies?" Are you kidding? She'll give her LIFE for Aperture.

[insomniac-arrest]

I do think the funniest theory on why humans started kissing is definitely the germ swap theory. While romantic/sexual kissing is not universal, non-romantic kissing is well-established across history and cultures as a form of affection. One of the theories behind our kiss-kiss-fall in love dynamics is that it allows for microbe exchange and microbiome balancing [same link above]. They balancing the dang humors through a mwah.

really was just, "I love you. GERMS be upon yee"

[eddieintheocean]

Anyone who says no to being able to become immortal is silly.

consider the number of creatures you could study

[all-too-unwell-13]

born to be understood, forced to be english/history smart in a school full of math/science smart people 🫡

[laconic-void]

To the people whose interests are literature, math, history, science, or anything else typically taught in school: I am so sorry.

I am sorry that you constantly have to hear people talking about how boring your interests are, how much they hate them, and how they "will never be useful in the real world." I am sorry the education system couldn't do its job of making learning these subjects enjoyable for students, particularly disabled ones, and that you have to face the consequences. I am sorry to the disabled students in question whose experience and interest with the subject was tainted by ableism.

No matter what you're interested in, there's another person out there who shares your fascination, and they rightfully think it's totally rad! Keep on going!

[kit-screams-into-the-future]

Okay I saw more of your art and had to come back (if it’s okay)

Maybe this time….King Marty? Like in a kings outfit with the septor

and crown and stuff? Idk

no problem at all! i'm just happy you enjoy :D

anyone with any remote knowledge of historical dress from any vague period or region please avert your eyes.

[geee-three]

why are you still awake. go to sleep.

you are also still awake. go to sleep.

[astriiformes]

Feeling some kind of way about the existence of this 17th century history of medicine book

[jordiethepoolfloatie]

Hello my friend, 😊

I'm Ahmad from Gaza, married and have a little girl. 👨‍👩‍👧 I live in a displacement tent in Deir al-Balah after our home was completely destroyed in Khan Yunis. 💔 With the frequent displacement and high costs, I face significant difficulties in providing shelter, basic necessities, and medical care for my family.

We live in very harsh conditions and urgently need support to overcome this crisis. 🙏

Any help, no matter how small, can make a big difference. 🌟 Please donate and share the link.

https://gofund.me/665fbb6c. 💖

Verified by bees and watermelon, number 171 and northgazaupdates.

Vetted by @gazavetters , my number verified on the list is ( #84 )

Dear Ahmad, I’m sharing your link and information here, and I’ll be tagging this with as many tags as possible in order to reach as many people as possible.

Dear friends on tumblr! Please do your best to share this around and if you’re able to, donate to Ahmad and his family! Any amount is immensely helpful and greatly appreciated! Let’s get together as a community and help them!

[scarletrose-o7]

Alr. So I heard one of the most bizarre sentences in my admittedly short life. It goes along the lines of:

"As you go back into history, the clearer things become."

JESUS FUCKING CHRIST. WHAT. THE FUCK.

I'm not joking when I say I got a fever from that sentence. I'm currently in bed trying to recover, and I almost cried.

WHAT DO YOU MEAN??? LIKE, YOU DO UNDERSTAND THAT PEOPLE ARE FIGHTING WHETHER A CERTAIN PERSON IN HISTORY EVEN EXISTED OR NO??

THE BIRTH OF THE FUCKING UNIVERSE IS EASY???

Nononononon—

We're all just ✨️ dumbasses ✨️ who can't figure out shit. I mean, who needs evidence? Nah, bro. Look at my skibbidi rizz instead, daring.

Hoho, proof? I made it the fuck up.

Like, I'm not even sure where I should start ranting. My brain is so fucked. I feel so offended and overwhelmed. My fucking fingers are trembling so hard. Like, is this what the average Twitter user feels like on the daily? Holy shit.

[kick-a-long]

I'm trying to sort out who the fuck shares my interests, if I'm as old as i think i am and which place has the best scene.

[girlboccaccio]

Turin, 22 April 1909 - Rome, 30 December 2012

[hanakogames]

While her husband’s name was the only one on the box—the company crafted a mystique around Scott as a solo adventure-making genius—Alexis contributed to many of the titles Adventure International produced. Some games credit her as co-creator on their title screens, if nowhere else, and one gives her sole billing there: 1979’s Voodoo Castle. A few other women designers had published games by that year, including Carol Shaw at Atari, but Alexis was among the first to receive a visible credit. In a contemporary interview, Scott noted that she built the game “95% on her own” after learning how to use his database system; this also might make her the first nonprogrammer in history to use a domain-specific tool to make a digital game. She dedicated Voodoo Castle “to all moms!” and it featured multiple female characters, including “Medium Maegen,” a hint-dispensing spiritualist named after her daughter—maybe the first woman with dialogue in a video game.

from 50 Years of Text games, discussing Alexis Adams, wife of Scott Adams

I've never played a Scott Adams game. Honestly, I was mostly only familiar with him as an offhand reference, almost a joke, from the old text adventure community.

Back in the time period when I was involved with the yearly IFComp, most games were made with either Inform or TADS (my preference as it was closer to programming languages I was familiar with). There were always a few people who insisted on building their own awkward homebrew engines which lacked the features of the more mature toolsets, and would often be described as "Scott Adams-like", using simple prose and accepting parser commands of only two words at a time, no fluff. At least a few games claimed to be deliberately emulating that style.

Unfamiliar with the name and history, I misunderstood the context and assumed that Scott Adams was some sort of mad auteur, "giftedly bad", deliberately retro or wildly indie, cheerfully releasing games that lacked 'standard' polish and not caring about it because it was fun. I absolutely did not comprehend how old these first games were, nor how important in the history of home computer game sales. And I certainly never heard Alexis' name. Sadly, she's no longer with us.