The Genesis of Science

[captainzman]

James,

I just noticed that you have a new link under your posts. Is this the US version of God's Philosophers? If so, are there any significant changes from the UK version?

[James Hannam]

Hi,

Yes, this is the US edition. It is exactly the same as the UK edition except the spelling has been Americanised, I've corrected a few minor mistakes and I re did the section on arches as that was rather unclear.

best wishes

James

[merkavah12]

Dr. Hannam,

You'll just love this review of your book on Amazon by an "Aldo Matteucci":

One is amazed and amused by instistence with which philosophers and other assorted intellectuals assert that they have influenced the world, and the development of science. Thomas, Grosseteste, Bacon, and others had a positive/negative influence on science? Forget it. They were talking to each other, oblivious to what the world "downstairs" was doing. Just one example. While Thomas was pontificating about Aristoteles' "efficient cause" - common people were discarding roman numerals for arabic numbers system, and the four basic mathematical operations spread like wildfire throughout Europe. Try and imagine what this innovation meant for merchants and craftsmen, and how the minds were "opened" by this innovation. The universities, and the philosophers in their monasteries did not have a clue that this was going on.

[James Hannam]

I thought Aldo's review was quite interesting. Clearly, it's a review of the editorial material and not the book. I suspect he'd find the book more to his liking than the thinks. He's right to contrast intellectual science with technology and right to identify the 19th century as when it all changed. Until that time, technology had little connection to science, but starting in Germany's chemical industry the modern concept of technology as applied science was born. And yes, that was not a smooth process.

He is also correct to note the importance of vernicular science writing in the sixteenth century. But I fear he may take Christopher Hill rather too literally in this area. And of course, Aldo's angry left wing tone is not helpful. But there is more to his comments than might initally seem to be the case.

Best wishes

James

[merkavah12]

I think you are being a bit too generous with the man (especially given his latest comments).

[merkavah12]

Hmmm...looks like Gymnopodie gave you a bit of a mixed review. Whatever happened to that guy?

[chuff]

And look who dropped by the comments thread of gymnopodie's review - the author of the book with the competing name. Do I smell a rivalry brewing?

Btw, I'm about 50 pages through my copy. Very enjoyable read so far, I really need to knock out some more time so I can finish it but unfortunately time is scarce these days. Oh well.

[merkavah12]

Mar 28, 2011 1:57:27 GMT chuff said:

And look who dropped by the comments thread of gymnopodie's review - the author of the book with the competing name.

And how! Just look at this.

I'm grateful for your balanced review of James Hannam's book. However, I wanted you to know that the Middle Ages really wasn't the genesis of science. The genesis of science actually took place in the days of ancient Greece, over 15 centuries before the Middle Ages. The rationalistic Greeks were really the ones who invented the scientific method and first explored the varied fields of science that we know today. That is why the very names we give to these fields -- like biology and psychology -- are Greek in origin. To learn about the true origin of science you may enjoy reading my new book, which has the same title as Hannam's though with a different subtitle: THE GENESIS OF SCIENCE: THE STORY OF GREEK IMAGINATION (Prometheus, 2010), also available from Amazon.

Wow, advertising yourself in someone else's review? That's some stones, right there.

[merkavah12]

Whatever you do, don't call Freeman, Charlie (as Mr. Kellmeyer learned):

Steve. I am not sure why you choose to call me Charlie. I am a Charles. I have read widely in books by both Templeton and non-Templeton scholars and I only note that there is a great deal of new research especially relating to the Vatican archives which appears to be ignored by some scholars associated with The Templeton Foundation. So that you do not have to rely in my own ignorance and bias, I gave references to them. They are all greater specialists in this field than I am and I am happy to defer to them. Alas, I have not time or room to quote the recent research in detail so perhaps you will want to follow it up yourself rather than using me as some kind of target!

Also, don't ask him to back up his statements, he hates too.