The Mechanization of the World Picture

by E.J. Dijksterhuis and Eduard J. Dijksterhuis

Book Overview

The description for this book, The Mechanization of the World Picture: Pythagoras to Newton, will be forthcoming. This description may be from another edition of this product.

• Format: Hardcover
• ISBN: B000WXENTO
• Release Date: January 1962
• Publisher: Oxford University Press

Customer Reviews

Well-written history of mechanics

This is a good, solid, broad history of mechanics. Dijksterhuis offers subjective interpretations only occasionally, but when he does he is very dogmatic. Fortunately, it is easy to refute some of his whiggish ideas by his own words. Consider the following conclusion on Kepler (pp. 321-322): "If the question was asked what are the new elements in Kepler's work, it has to be replied that these are not in the first place results which greatly deviate from the old system; the main achievement is a method that is very clearly different. The principal features of this method are: (1) Rejection of all arguments which are solely based on tradition and authority. (2) Independence of scientific inquiry of all philosophical and theological tenets. (3) Constant application of the mathematical mode of thought in the formulation and elaboration of hypotheses. (4) Rigorous verification of these results deduced from the latter by means of an empiricism raised to the highest degree of accuracy." (1)-(4) is a very poor characterisation of science. No true scientist ever conformed to these principles, certainly not Kepler, of all people, whose Mysterium Cosmographicum and Harmonice Mundi (virtually ignored here) violate all of them from start to finish, nor Galileo, nor Newton, etc. Let me give a few illustrations. (2). "[Kepler] passes without the slightest effort from the world-picture to the Trinity, and it is by no means inconceivable that the resemblance he sees between the two helped to inspire one of his most fruitful ideas, the conception of the sun as the causa efficiens of planetary motion." (pp. 305-306). (4). Kepler's magnetic theory of planetary motion, which it "is, of course, not difficult to prove the untenability of" (p. 313), still gets a prominent place in the Astronomia Nova, "his greatest work" (p. 306). (4). There is virtually no support for "the myth that Galileo was a great advocate of experiment" (p. 353). On the contrary, "in Galileo's work, verification by experiment sometimes appears to be of secondary importance because it may be regarded as somewhat superfluous if the preceding reasoning seems very convincing; thus only purely mental experiments remain or the experiments are only described without being performed. 'I made an experiment about it, but natural reason (il natural discorso) had very firmly convinced me that the phenomena was bound to take place as it actually did'." (p. 345). (2) and (3). Although "the aim of the Cartesian method is indeed to cause all scientific thinking to take place in the manner of mathematics" (p. 405), thus in principle endorsing (3), "few marks of it are to be found in the work of Descartes himself" (p. 405). In fact, perhaps the main appeal of his work is his rejection of (2): "To a considerable extent ... men will no doubt ... have been impressed by the unity of the world-picture in which his powerful mind had blended natural science, philosophy, and religion" (p. 408). (2). "The strong inf

It's simply The Bible -- And here are four related indispensables....

Add my unreserved kudos to the initial 5-star review below, and then some! Dijksterhuis' "Science In The Middle Ages" section, based on the relatively extensive source material surviving from that period, may be the more comprehensive; but the preceding "Legacy Of Antiquity" section constitutes one of the two or three most detailed and incisive summaries available of the several lines of "Presocratic" philosophers who set the stage for Aristotle and Plato (who were in turn the two biggest influences on Medieval science, philosophy, and philosophy of science). The book's subtitle names Pythagoras as the starting point, but the "Main Currents Of Greek Philosophical Thought About Nature" section quickly flashes all the way back, via Parmenides and his Eleatic "change and difference are total illusions" School, to early beginnings: Empedocles and Anaxagoras, as the founders of the "corpuscular/dynamic" tradition that would culminate in Leucippus' and Democritus' widely resisted "atomic" theory. The later classical thinkers reacted to Parmenides' critique of the "primary substance" theory of Thales and his followers -- the Founding Founders of Western philosophy, mathematics and science -- and to his "Change Is All" nemesis, Heraclitus -- in various and distinctive ways. Dijksterhuis' analysis of the essence and variabilities of corpuscular ("tiny particles in the void") theory packs more insight into fewer paragraphs than any other work on the history of science that I know of. Plato is handled well, and Aristotle is, deservedly, examined closely and at length. Islamic contributions, Renaissance and Enlightenment perspectives, and the influences of astronomy, chemistry, mechanics and more are interwoven in a masterly display of scholarly attainment and principled synthesis. Hence, this title is engrossing reading in its own right, as well as being an essential reference for anyone interested in researching/writing about the origins of natural science and related philosophical matters (my own focus is partly on the evolution of the notion of "explanation", starting with the Age of Myth and transitioning into the Greek mode that would define Western science and, as the author rightfully claims, a good deal of general culture as well; hence the great value here for me.) That transition from myth to methodology, by the way, isn't nearly as cut-and-dried as it is commonly presented in popular surveys and school texts. Hence, a highly recommended adjunct to the present title is a pair of complementary masterworks, "Before Philosophy" by Frankfort et. al. and John Burnet's "Early Greek Philosophy". The former is a superbly insightful study of the nature of the mythological modes that preceded a philosophy built upon what Frankfort so pithily calls "the autonomy of thought"; the latter provides a wealth of detail that Dijksterhuis largely omits in keeping with his narrower focus, along with a wealth of enlightening analysis and characterizati

Superb.

A leek as I am in the field of Math, physiscs & Chemistry I am very intetested in the historical progress of this fields, that eventually all come together in the great Isaack Newton, and in fact that is where this books is ending. I read it cos I was interested in what there is exactly to be ment with a complete mechanical view on the world, this book gave me an idea of what that would mean. And while I never took exact science classes I have deep admiration for all the one who contributed to this field. My interests came purely from a philosophical perspective, and till about halfway the book, that what you read is not so much different than reading any regular philosophybook, but then its getting tougher, if you dont have any possession of exact science knowledge. Even while the writer of the book often points out that this book is ment for those who are as a tabula rassa (to speak with Lockes words) in this field. But I thought that it still was not easy. I cant say I understand all the theories that have passed bye, but I can now see a beter historical line from the classical days to Newton, that explains cleary how science have developed and who were responsible for what. especially the more social debates, influence on society an d how it changed peoples thoughts very slowly, I read with great interest. Unfortunatly there was to much abstract and to less social historical background. Still I think a memorial achievement that everyone that is seriously interested in philosophy, history of science, scientific revolution, enlightenment or before you are going to read the works of the masters, should read.

Outstanding history

Very detailed and in-depth history of the early developments in physics leading up to Galileo and Newton's ideas. Because Galileo so overshadowed earlier scientists, their names are rarely heard, and many science students have the impression that Galileo came up with these ideas in a vacuum, since their historical antecedents never get discussed much. For example, how many students are aware of the contributions of earlier mathematicians and scientists such as Nicholas of Cusa or Nicole d'Oresme? This book will rectify that impression. The discussion of the contributions of late Medieval and early Renaissance schools that made important contributions to the area of mechanics and physics, such as the School of Chartres (to mention just one example), I thought were especially good. This book is a must for anyone interested in the early history of science and mathematics. The book is out of print for some years now, but if you can find a used copy, it's well worth picking up.