Eureka! The Birth Of Science

-->

Title: Eureka! The Birth of Science

Author: Andrew Gregory

Publisher: Icon Books 2003 (First published: 2001)

ISBN: 1-84046-374-0

Pages: 171

Andrew Greogry is a reader of history of science in University College, London and has widely written on many facets of the development of science. This book seeks to outline the growth of science from rudimentary spouts in ancient Greece. Though by no means unique, Greek thought and philosophy built upon the origins first seen in Babylon and Egypt and was greatly enriched by the geniuses of Socrates, Plato, Aristotle and numerous other great thinkers. The light of original thought was dimmed but not put out by the darkness of medieval ages, kept lit by Arab thinkers and handed over to Europe which was just waking up from a few centuries of slumber by the 13^th century. There are five major periods in ancient science – Babylonian (pre-1000 BCE), Pre-Socratic (600-400 BCE), Athenian (400-300 BCE), Hellenistic (300 BCE – 200 CE) and Roman (200-600 CE). The author takes a deeper look into the middle three, with cursory glances over the fifth.

Technology predated science. Every civilization, whether known or very primitive, had some form of technology, otherwise they would not have lasted even that much. It dealt with when or how a thing would happen. Science is different in the sense that it explains why a thing would happen. Extensive thought and logic goes behind enunciation of scientific principles. To differentiate a scientific theory from numerous alternatives, it must be different from mythology and should not resort to supernatural causes to explain natural phenomena. The Greeks were the first to propound ideas which stand up to this test. Of course, their theories won’t stand up to modern critical review, but they had one thing in common with modern concepts – both attempts a natural explanation of phenomena that had previously been attributed to the whimsical actions of gods. Anaximander’s theory that thunder and lightning is caused by the action of wind is a case in point. The Greeks were naturally advantaged to have no central religion to impede the path of intellect and no hierarchy of priests to rule over men. Unfortunately, their technology and science was not interlinked, due to a social reason. The Greek society employed a large number of slave labourers and labour-saving automation was not in the minds of free thinkers and slave owners!

When theories began to be shaped, thought turned more sophisticated. Empedocles of Acragas introduced the four elements of matter (earth, water, fire and air) which constituted various substances in differing ratios of constitution. Hippocrates of Cos, in his medical canon, established that all diseases have natural causes and nothing is caused by divine intervention. Geometry, which literally means measuring the earth developed well before Greeks, but it flourished as a science through the works of Euclid and Pythagoras. Plato and Aristotle contributed a lot to philosophy. Aristotle’s theories contained holism, organic world view and qualitative, rather than quantitative methodologies. It took nearly eighteen centuries for these ideas to be expunged out of science.

Astronomy took root rapidly in ancient Greece. Earth was regarded as the centre of the Universe. The retrograde motion of inner planets of the solar system greatly confused the astronomers who based their cosmological models on geocentrism. Eudoxus of Cnides proposed a concentric sphere model in which planets were allowed complex motions in the spheres to account for their retrograde motion. The model was refined by his pupil, Callippus of Cyzicus, by introducing more concentric spheres. A change in perspective, putting the sun at the centre would have greatly simplified the solution, but so entrenched was the weight of tradition that any such avenues were soon closed. Even with Callippus’ modifications there were differences with observation. Since planets revolved around the sun in elliptic orbits, rather than circular as thought by Greeks, the concentric sphere model was difficult to agree with observation. Ptolemy of Alexandria put forth another novel concept, called epicycles to account for the vagaries. Even though the model was flawed, it so agreed with observational data that it took 1500 years to unseat by Copernicus and Galileo. Even in the Greek world, isolated voices were protesting against established wisdom. Aristarchus of Samos theorized that the earth circles around the sun, but his arguments convinced none.

Galen was the most prominent medical practitioner of antiquity, bringing forth the humoural system of the body. He believed that four key humours keep the body healthy by a delicate balance among themselves. The humours were, blood, phlegm, black bile and yellow bile, standing for air, water, fire and earth respectively of the Aristotelian elements. Ancient medicine was handicapped by social taboo of dissecting or vivifying human bodies. Galen relied more on Barbary apes for dissection than human beings, and the difference is evidenced by subtle variations in the actions of body muscles described by Galen to actual movements. The descriptional flaws of Galen on muscles of the human hand was clarified by Vesalius in 16^th century, who observed that Galen’s ideas corresponded correctly with simian hands. Errors which would surprise a modern man was also abundant in Galen’s works. He didn’t believe that it was the heart which is causing pulse in arteries.

Archimedes was a glowing tribute to Hellenistic science. He was a mathematician and engineer, though Gregory objects to inventions like water screw pump and solar ray concentrating device which are commonly attributed to him. His uttering forms the title of the book, but the incident, which might be apocryphal, would have been better to be illustrated in more detail. Archimedes deviced a clever way by hydrostatic method for determining adulteration in the golden crown of Hieron II. He was killed by a Roman soldier when he failed to answer the impatient Roman, as he was deep in thought. The darkness which filtered in after the collapse of Roman empire lasted until a millennium after. The spread of Christianity proved to be fatal to free thought and enquiry. All forms of knowledge were made subservient to the Church who allowed nothing but religious revelations. Unlike many Christian leaders, a great scholar and intellectual like St. Augustine said that, “What has Athens to do with Jerusalem, the Academy to do with the Church, the heretic to do with the Christian?….We have no need for curiosity after Jesus Christ, and no need of investigation after the gospel. Firstly we believe this, that there is nothing else that we need to believe” (p.154). This essentially sums up the logic of the dark medieval era when religion ruled the world.

The book is very compact, gifted with a glossary and timeline. But that’s about the whole which can be said in its favour. The language is terse, and narration is completely uninteresting. The author has not even a nodding acquaintance with humour, in this book at least. There is no focus on the central theme, which is the origin of science. Apart from listing out a number of philosophers and their contributions which you’d anyway get from a handbook or encyclopedia, the author has not tried to weave a string of connecting logic through the factoids. Gregory’s undue praise for Aristotle is unfounded on actual facts. It was Aristotelian grip that science found so difficult to shake off, after centuries of darkness. Aristotle was vehemently opposed to experimentation which was counter to the scientific method.  He believed the heart to be the central organ and thought that the brain was for cooling the blood supply.

Andrew Gregory uses terms like A.D. and B.C for reckoning time, where CE and BCE would have been proper for a scientific work. After reading the book, the reader is confused whether Aristotle devised a four- or five-element model of the universe, as it is specified in both contexts in various parts of the book. The book is a drag on time and waste of effort.

The book is not recommended.

Rating: 2 Star