When did science start?

[Humes fork]

This is something for you philosophers of science out there.

Modern science is typically said to have started in the 16th and 17th centuries during the scientific revolution. However, there was clearly research earlier, in the Middle Ages (both in Europe and the Islamic world) as well as in the ancient world. Not just ancient Greece, but also in places like Babylonia and Egypt (though heavily mixed with superstition). Carl Sagan talked quite a bit about the experiments and theories of the pre-Socratic philosophers in Cosmos (easily found on Youtube). He also referred to Lucretius as the first popularizer of science.

Are these ancient thinkers properly referred to as scientists or not? If what they did was not science, what was it? Certainly many of the questions they tried to answer would be considered scientific today. That itself is not enough though, as many of the questions religions try to answer are scientific questions.

 

[mijopaalmc]

I don't think that this is an answerable question, because no-one is going to agree on what science is.

 

[crimresearch]

The components of observation and replication imply the need for accurate recording of data, and true writing goes back a long time. (Sumeria?)

If they used the scientific method, then why wouldn't they be scientists?

 

[azzthom]

IIRC, the first scientist known by name was called Imhotep, an ancient Egyptian (obviously), who is recorded as designing one of the pyramids. IMO, an architect is a valid nomination for an early scientist. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imhotep

As far as science itself goes, it is highly debatable what constitutes science. My suggestion would be that it started long before any of the early civilizations with what might be called 'Genetic Engineering'. Our very ancient ancestors were selectively breeding animals. I think it is reasonable to believe that they learned how to get the best results by a process of experimentation.

Both of these suggestions are open to debate, challenge, discussion etc.

As was stated by the previous poster, a lot depends on how you define science.

 

[MG1962]

Modern science is typically said to have started in the 16th and 17th centuries during the scientific revolution.

According to who?

Who claims this, even the Wiki article you linked too does not make such a claim

 

[Roboramma]

I think this question, while at first interesting, is really just one of semantics. Before the scientific revolution people asked scientific questions, and sometimes answered them with reason and experiment, and sometimes not. But the methodology wasn't really developed, and that's why progress was so haphazard, and why mixed in with that progress was so much superstitious thinking.

There's a certain sense in which science is being done when you give a name to an animal species, a constellation in the night sky, or a type of rain. In that same sense recording the motion of the planets is science, and more deeply, so is building a theoretical framework to explain that motion.

But once you being that last step, lacking the full tools of the scientific method, it's difficult to separate the true framework that explains observations, from the false. Nevertheless, the ancients certainly had some of those tools, and used them some of the time.

Which suggests to me that the best answer is that sometimes they did science, but they didn't know how to tell the difference between science and pseudoscience.

 

[Complexity]

Humes Fork - Once again, rather merely asking a question in an OP, do us the courtesy of expressing your own opinion at the outset.

 

[Complexity]

According to who?

Who claims this, even the Wiki article you linked too does not make such a claim

I think he merely makes things up.

 

[Lowpro]

Science started when I gave my Sim his first chemistry set

 

[MG1962]

I think he merely makes things up.

Me thinks you are onto something there

 

[Ron_Tomkins]

When did science start?

When the first human being said: "I think such and such phenomena is due to such and such cause. What would be a good experiment to find out whether or not this is true?" And then went ahead and did the experiment, and reached an objective, verifiable, repeatable conclusion.

 

[Complexity]

Me thinks you are onto something there

I was recently reading an Anders thread (yes, I know, I know). The idea just popped out at me and said 'Boo!'.

 

[C_Felix]

The same time curiosity started.

 

[geni]

According to who?

Well one of the science of the discworld books makes the claim. In that case it is based on an assertion that it isn't really science unless you have peers who are also doing science.

There is some validity to this assertion since otherwise the system tends to boil down to noted sage says X and people belive it based on the reputation of the sage rather than the evidence presented.

 

[Halfcentaur]

Democritus learned it from some strange man down in the creek.

 

[Gazpacho]

There's a book called A People's History of Science that kind of addresses this question, pointing out for example that even hunter-gatherer existence requires a great deal of practical knowledge rivaling present-day naturalists.

 

[crimresearch]

There's a book called A People's History of Science that kind of addresses this question, pointing out for example that even hunter-gatherer existence requires a great deal of practical knowledge rivaling present-day naturalists.

I would agree with that... even the simplest weapons required some of the skills of science in terms of observing what worked and rejecting the poorer choices.
Survival in terms of figuring out where food and water was probably depended on oral transmission and processing of data.

 

[MG1962]

I would agree with that... even the simplest weapons required some of the skills of science in terms of observing what worked and rejecting the poorer choices.
Survival in terms of figuring out where food and water was probably depended on oral transmission and processing of data.

And when you think about it - we are the product of those successful experiements

 

[Acleron]

I think this question, while at first interesting, is really just one of semantics. Before the scientific revolution people asked scientific questions, and sometimes answered them with reason and experiment, and sometimes not. But the methodology wasn't really developed, and that's why progress was so haphazard, and why mixed in with that progress was so much superstitious thinking.

There's a certain sense in which science is being done when you give a name to an animal species, a constellation in the night sky, or a type of rain. In that same sense recording the motion of the planets is science, and more deeply, so is building a theoretical framework to explain that motion.

But once you being that last step, lacking the full tools of the scientific method, it's difficult to separate the true framework that explains observations, from the false. Nevertheless, the ancients certainly had some of those tools, and used them some of the time.

Which suggests to me that the best answer is that sometimes they did science, but they didn't know how to tell the difference between science and pseudoscience.

Another reason for the lack of progress was the relative lack of usefulness of the results of science. It all took off in a large way at the time of the industrial revolution when the benefits of scientific knowledge became available to other disciplines such as engineering and architecture. War helped as well

 

[arthwollipot]

When the first human being said: "I think such and such phenomena is due to such and such cause. What would be a good experiment to find out whether or not this is true?" And then went ahead and did the experiment, and reached an objective, verifiable, repeatable conclusion.

Frequently considered to be Galileo.