mobi ☆ doc The First Scientist Anaximander and His Legacy Free


pdf The First Scientist

mobi ☆ doc The First Scientist Anaximander and His Legacy Free ¾ [Read] ➬ The First Scientist: Anaximander and His Legacy Author Join or create book clubs – Eyltransferservices.co.uk Marvelous A wonderful book HumanaMenteRovelli is the dream author to conduct us on this journey NonfictionfrAt this poinMarvelous A wonderful book HumanaMenteRovelli is the dream author to conduct us on this journey NonfictionfrAt this point in time when the prestige of science is at a low and even simple issues like climate change are mired in controversy Carlo Rovelli gives us a necessary reflection on what science is and where it comes from Rovelli is a deeply original thinker so it is not surprising that he has novel views on the important uestions of the nature and origin of scienceLee Smolin founding member and researcher at the Perimeter Institute for Theoretical Physics and author of The Trouble with PhysicsWinner of the Prix du Livre Haute Maurienne de lAstronomieCarlo Rovelli a leading theoretical physicist uses the figure of Anaximander as the starting point for an examination of scientific thinking itself its limits its strengths its benefits to humankind and its controversial relationship with religion Anaximander the sixth century BC Greek philosopher is often called the first scientist because he was the first to suggest that order in the world was due to natural forces not supernatural ones He is the first person known to understand that the Earth floats in space; to believe that the sun the moon and the stars rotate around itseven centuries before Ptolemy; to argue that all animals came from the sea and evolved; and to posit that universal laws control all change in the world Anaximander taught Pythagoras who would build on Anaximanders scientific theories by applying mathematical laws to natural phenomenaIn the award winning The First Scientist Anaximander and His Legacy translated here for the first time in English Rovelli restores Anaximander to his place in the history of science by carefully reconstructing his theories from what is known to us and examining them in their historical and philosophical contexts Rovelli demonstrates that Anaximanders discoveries and theories were decisive influences putting Western culture on its path toward a scientific revolution Developing this connection Rovelli redefines science as a continuous redrawing of our conceptual image of the world He concludes that scientific thinkingthe legacy of Anaximanderis only reliable when it constantly tests the limits of our current knowledge It’s hard to make an assessment of this book On its face it seems to be a historical study of the place of Anaximander in the development of modern science And for the first half of the book it really is that But from there Rovelli takes off into a much loosely bound discussion of truth reality relativism religion language and the fate of the worldI’ll start with Anaximander It’s a cliche that history is told by the winners But if science is a “winner” then Rovelli is telling the winner’s history of science His claim at the highest level is that Anaximander produced the first “scientific revolution” the beginnings of science itselfWhat Anaximander does is remarkable But I’m not convinced by Rovelli that Anaximander’s thought traces the beginning of a solid line toward modern scienceHere are some key aspects Rovelli calls out in Anaximander’s thought as a progenitor of science that the world may be different than it appears to us knowledge as a progression of dialogue and debate based on uestioning what has previously been thought a new model of the shape and position of earth not flat resting on a foundation of some sort but a cylinder freely floating in the universeCertainly in the terms of Anaximander’s thinking and in the absence of any explicitly mythological elements there is a strain that we could call “naturalistic”But I think he’s actually interesting and puzzling than that In what we have of Anaximander’s actual writings there are two concepts that seem difficult in our own time and terms to reconcileOne concerns change and multiplicity — that “all things originate from one another and vanish into one another” Anaximander is traditionally interpreted in naturalistic terms although his claim is not unambiguously naturalistic at least not in modern terms What he means by “originate” could as well be given a logical or purely conceptual interpretation as a naturalistic one And in fact the cosmologies of ancient Greece commonly told of such things as order and difference as developing from prior unities or chaosThe second concept is the “apeiron” as the origin or principle “arche” of all things “Apeiron” is sometimes translated as “the infinite” or “the indefinite” or “the undifferentiated” I think it a stretch to give an unambiguously naturalistic interpretation of “apeiron” In a naturalistic interpretation you could read it as a truly empirical “thing” — an undifferentiated substance out of which all the multiplicity of things we are familiar with originates Or you could see it as a logical concept as the origin of multiplicity in undifferentiated unity In fact I think the distinction between a naturalistic interpretation and a logical one is something we lay over Anaxminder’s thought — it simply wasn’t a mature distinction at the timeCorrespondingly what comes after Anaximander is neither pure naturalistic science nor pure rationalism The themes that Rovelli pulls from Anaximander’s thought and times are important for the future history of knowledge but in various guises besides anything we would call “science” in a modern sense For example Parmenides certainly not a “scientist” explicitly separated the world as it appears to us the world of “seeming” from the world as it really is the world of “truth” Aristotle refined a method of presenting the thoughts of earlier philosophers as a basis for his own arguments and positions providing an explicit structure for progress in thought but not a method of science per seLikewise Plato’s rationalist dialectic has roots in dialogue and debate of a conceptual sort and is embedded in his idealist metaphysic of “forms” at best a distant kin to modern scienceAll of this is criticism of Rovelli’s history based on a popular conception of what is meant by “science” And were Rovelli an adherent of that popular conception one that revolves around strict adherence to observation hypothesis experiment and “method” then he would be a scientistic teller of fables about the emergence of science from the darkness of superstition and mythBut he wants to construct a different understanding of what science is one he refers to at one point as “science as a cognitive activity” p 111 He gives at least one explicit definitionScience means building and developing an image of the world which is to say a conceptual structure for thinking about the world effective and consistent with what we know and learn about the world itselfThere’s a lot packed into that sentenceHe says also “It ie science is above all an ongoing exploration of new ways of thinking”Rovelli is doing at least two things at once in this part of the book He is telling a story about the history of science finding its origins in Anaximander’s thought or broadly that of the Milesian philosophers but he is also in doing so recommending that we think a little bit differently about what science is that we crack away some of the rigid technical structures we’ve built around the enterprise of science and get back to something that may have been fitting to Anaximander’s time a less tightly bound search for the terms in which to understand the worldIn doing so he steps into the territory of modern philosophy of science In his chapter on “What is Science?” he attempts to find his footing within that debate with Kuhn Feyerabend Lakatos and others The discussion is very short and his criticisms of those thinkers abrupt and controversial But in a way that doesn’t matter — it’s not the point of this part of the book The point I think is to with the help of Anaximander’s thought turn our understanding of science in a conceptual direction — into an explicit focus not only on facts and observation per se but on the terms in which we think about and organize the facts and observations of science Rovelli thinks that in fact this is what great scientists doThe second roughly half of the book takes off into a broad discussion coming to rest eventually in a discussion of science and religion While Rovelli is not so strident a proponent of science over religion as some of his contemporaries you will find familiar themes here — in particular an attack on “absolutism” as a defining characteristic of religionDiscussions of religion vs science tend to be one sided and Rovelli’s is no exception I found particularly presumptuous this characterization of science as acceptance of uncertainty and religion as assertion of absolutism In practice the difference doesn’t seem so stark Scientists often assert absolute postitions Sometimes it’s the truth of theories and other times eually forceful the absolutism of method And religion is often a dynamic of faith and doubt and sometimes acceptance of mystery Broad strokes don’t do either side justiceAll in all Rovelli has made me think deeply about Anaximander and about what “knowing” really is in the time of the pre Socratics Maybe fittingly I don’t find his account to be “true” but enlightening

The First Scientist Anaximander and His LegacyMarvelous A wonderful book HumanaMenteRovelli is the dream author to conduct us on this journey NonfictionfrAt this point in time when the prestige of science is at a low and even simple issues like climate change are mired in controversy Carlo Rovelli gives us a necessary reflection on what science is and where it comes from Rovelli is a deeply original thinker so it is not surprising that he has novel views on the important uestions of the nature and origin of scienceLee Smolin founding member and researcher at the Perimeter Institute for Theoretical Physics and author of The Trouble with PhysicsWinner of the Prix du Livre Haute Maurienne de lAstronomieCarlo Rovelli a leading theoretical physicist uses the figure of Anaximander as the starting point for an examination of scientific thinking itself its limits its strengths its benefits to humankind and its controversial relationship with religion Anaximander the sixth century BC Greek philosopher is often called the first scientist because he was the first to suggest that order in the world was due to natural forces not supernatural ones He is the first person known to understand that the Earth floats in space; to believe that the sun the moon and the stars rotate around itseven centuries before Ptolemy; to argue that all animals came from the sea and evolved; and to posit that universal laws control all change in the world Anaximander taught Pythagoras who would build on Anaximanders scientific theories by applying mathematical laws to natural phenomenaIn the award winning The First Scientist Anaximander and His Legacy translated here for the first time in English Rovelli restores Anaximander to his place in the history of science by carefully reconstructing his theories from what is known to us and examining them in their historical and philosophical contexts Rovelli demonstrates that Anaximanders discoveries and theories were decisive influences putting Western culture on its path toward a scientific revolution Developing this connection Rovelli redefines science as a continuous redrawing of our conceptual image of the world He concludes that scientific thinkingthe legacy of Anaximanderis only reliable when it constantly tests the limits of our current knowledge It’s hard to make an assessment of this book On its face it seems to be a historical study of the place of Anaximander in the development of modern science And for the first half of the book it really is that But from there Rovelli takes off into a much loosely bound discussion of truth reality relativism religion language and the fate of the worldI’ll start with Anaximander It’s a cliche that history is told by the winners But if science is a “winner” then Rovelli is telling the winner’s history of science His claim at the highest level is that Anaximander produced the first “scientific revolution” the beginnings of science itselfWhat Anaximander does is remarkable But I’m not convinced by Rovelli that Anaximander’s thought traces the beginning of a solid line toward modern scienceHere are some key aspects Rovelli calls out in Anaximander’s thought as a progenitor of science that the world may be different than it appears to us knowledge as a progression of dialogue and debate based on uestioning what has previously been thought a new model of the shape and position of earth not flat resting on a foundation of some sort but a cylinder freely floating in the universeCertainly in the terms of Anaximander’s thinking and in the absence of any explicitly mythological elements there is a strain that we could call “naturalistic”But I think he’s actually interesting and puzzling than that In what we have of Anaximander’s actual writings there are two concepts that seem difficult in our own time and terms to reconcileOne concerns change and multiplicity — that “all things originate from one another and vanish into one another” Anaximander is traditionally interpreted in naturalistic terms although his claim is not unambiguously naturalistic at least not in modern terms What he means by “originate” could as well be given a logical or purely conceptual interpretation as a naturalistic one And in fact the cosmologies of ancient Greece commonly told of such things as order and difference as developing from prior unities or chaosThe second concept is the “apeiron” as the origin or principle “arche” of all things “Apeiron” is sometimes translated as “the infinite” or “the indefinite” or “the undifferentiated” I think it a stretch to give an unambiguously naturalistic interpretation of “apeiron” In a naturalistic interpretation you could read it as a truly empirical “thing” — an undifferentiated substance out of which all the multiplicity of things we are familiar with originates Or you could see it as a logical concept as the origin of multiplicity in undifferentiated unity In fact I think the distinction between a naturalistic interpretation and a logical one is something we lay over Anaxminder’s thought — it simply wasn’t a mature distinction at the timeCorrespondingly what comes after Anaximander is neither pure naturalistic science nor pure rationalism The themes that Rovelli pulls from Anaximander’s thought and times are important for the future history of knowledge but in various guises besides anything we would call “science” in a modern sense For example Parmenides certainly not a “scientist” explicitly separated the world as it appears to us the world of “seeming” from the world as it really is the world of “truth” Aristotle refined a method of presenting the thoughts of earlier philosophers as a basis for his own arguments and positions providing an explicit structure for progress in thought but not a method of science per seLikewise Plato’s rationalist dialectic has roots in dialogue and debate of a conceptual sort and is embedded in his idealist metaphysic of “forms” at best a distant kin to modern scienceAll of this is criticism of Rovelli’s history based on a popular conception of what is meant by “science” And were Rovelli an adherent of that popular conception one that revolves around strict adherence to observation hypothesis experiment and “method” then he would be a scientistic teller of fables about the emergence of science from the darkness of superstition and mythBut he wants to construct a different understanding of what science is one he refers to at one point as “science as a cognitive activity” p 111 He gives at least one explicit definitionScience means building and developing an image of the world which is to say a conceptual structure for thinking about the world effective and consistent with what we know and learn about the world itselfThere’s a lot packed into that sentenceHe says also “It ie science is above all an ongoing exploration of new ways of thinking”Rovelli is doing at least two things at once in this part of the book He is telling a story about the history of science finding its origins in Anaximander’s thought or broadly that of the Milesian philosophers but he is also in doing so recommending that we think a little bit differently about what science is that we crack away some of the rigid technical structures we’ve built around the enterprise of science and get back to something that may have been fitting to Anaximander’s time a less tightly bound search for the terms in which to understand the worldIn doing so he steps into the territory of modern philosophy of science In his chapter on “What is Science?” he attempts to find his footing within that debate with Kuhn Feyerabend Lakatos and others The discussion is very short and his criticisms of those thinkers abrupt and controversial But in a way that doesn’t matter — it’s not the point of this part of the book The point I think is to with the help of Anaximander’s thought turn our understanding of science in a conceptual direction — into an explicit focus not only on facts and observation per se but on the terms in which we think about and organize the facts and observations of science Rovelli thinks that in fact this is what great scientists doThe second roughly half of the book takes off into a broad discussion coming to rest eventually in a discussion of science and religion While Rovelli is not so strident a proponent of science over religion as some of his contemporaries you will find familiar themes here — in particular an attack on “absolutism” as a defining characteristic of religionDiscussions of religion vs science tend to be one sided and Rovelli’s is no exception I found particularly presumptuous this characterization of science as acceptance of uncertainty and religion as assertion of absolutism In practice the difference doesn’t seem so stark Scientists often assert absolute postitions Sometimes it’s the truth of theories and other times eually forceful the absolutism of method And religion is often a dynamic of faith and doubt and sometimes acceptance of mystery Broad strokes don’t do either side justiceAll in all Rovelli has made me think deeply about Anaximander and about what “knowing” really is in the time of the pre Socratics Maybe fittingly I don’t find his account to be “true” but enlightening

reader Ü Anaximander and His Legacy ↠ Join or create book clubs

The First Scientist: Anaximander and His Legacy Ú Marvelous A wonderful book HumanaMenteRovelli is the dream author to conduct us on this journey NonfictionfrAt this point in time when the prestige of science is at a low and even simple issues like climate change are mired in controversy Carlo Rovelli gives us a necessary reflection on what science is and where it comes from Rovelli is a deeply original thinker so it is not surprising that he has novel views on the important uestions of the nature and origin of scienceLee Smolin founding member and researcher at the Perimeter Institute for Theoretical Physics and author of The Trouble with PhysicsWinner of the Prix du Livre Haute Maurienne de lAstronomieCarlo Rovelli a leading theoretical physicist uses the figure of Anaximander as the starting point for an examination of scientific thinking itself its limits its strengths its benefits to humankind and its controversial relationship with religion Anaximander the sixth century BC Greek philosopher is often called the first scientist because he was the first to suggest that order in the world was due to natural forces not supernatural ones He is the first person known to understand that the Earth floats in space; to believe that the sun the moon and the stars rotate around itseven centuries before Ptolemy; to argue that all animals came from the sea and evolved; and to posit that universal laws control all change in the world Anaximander taught Pythagoras who would build on Anaximanders scientific theories by applying mathematical laws to natural phenomenaIn the award winning The First Scientist Anaximander and His Legacy translated here for the first time in English Rovelli restores Anaximander to his place in the history of science by carefully reconstructing his theories from what is known to us and examining them in their historical and philosophical contexts Rovelli demonstrates that Anaximanders discoveries and theories were decisive influences putting Western culture on its path toward a scientific revolution Developing this connection Rovelli redefines science as a continuous redrawing of our conceptual image of the world He concludes that scientific thinkingthe legacy of Anaximanderis only reliable when it constantly tests the limits of our current knowledge This has got to be one of the most interesting books I have read What Aximander understood about the way the world works seems to be 2000 years ahead of his time Book is well writtena and very accessible IMO very important book as Aximander seems almost forgotten in modern world unlike some of the other great Greek thinkers who by comparison are household names reader Ü Anaximander and His Legacy ↠ Join or create book clubs

Join or create book clubs ↠ Anaximander and His Legacy mobi

Join or create book clubs ↠ Anaximander and His Legacy mobi Marvelous A wonderful book HumanaMenteRovelli is the dream author to conduct us on this journey NonfictionfrAt this point in time when the prestige of science is at a low and even simple issues like climate change are mired in controversy Carlo Rovelli gives us a necessary reflection on what science is and where it comes from Rovelli is a deeply original thinker so it is not surprising that he has novel views on the important uestions of the nature and origin of scienceLee Smolin founding member and researcher at the Perimeter Institute for Theoretical Physics and author of The Trouble with PhysicsWinner of the Prix du Livre Haute Maurienne de lAstronomieCarlo Rovelli a leading theoretical physicist uses the figure of Anaximander as the starting point for an examination of scientific thinking itself its limits its strengths its benefits to humankind and its controversial relationship with religion Anaximander the sixth century BC Greek philosopher is often called the first scientist because he was the first to suggest that order in the world was due to natural forces not supernatural ones He is the first person known to understand that the Earth floats in space; to believe that the sun the moon and the stars rotate around itseven centuries before Ptolemy; to argue that all animals came from the sea and evolved; and to posit that universal laws control all change in the world Anaximander taught Pythagoras who would build on Anaximanders scientific theories by applying mathematical laws to natural phenomenaIn the award winning The First Scientist Anaximander and His Legacy translated here for the first time in English Rovelli restores Anaximander to his place in the history of science by carefully reconstructing his theories from what is known to us and examining them in their historical and philosophical contexts Rovelli demonstrates that Anaximanders discoveries and theories were decisive influences putting Western culture on its path toward a scientific revolution Developing this connection Rovelli redefines science as a continuous redrawing of our conceptual image of the world He concludes that scientific thinkingthe legacy of Anaximanderis only reliable when it constantly tests the limits of our current knowledge What is one of the leading theorists of loop uantum gravity doing in the classical world? Well on the basis of an education I envy him he's showing us that the Platonic theory of science we virtually assume to be the dominant theory of the classical age has to share space in our understanding with what you might call a theory of scientific practice embodied in Anaximander His story of the Anaximander strand in the classical world is beautifully told I'm not euipped to evaluate it authoritatively But the pay off is that the table is set for a re evaluation of the scientific practice of the current scene in novel terms Alimento suisito for those with open minds about matters cosmological