When did science start?

[Perpetual Student]

Within the field of physics, it seems to me that scientific thinking that is recognizable as modern began with Galileo (1564 - 1642), which would be consistent with the time frame discussed here. I think biology and other disciplines took on a modern character at later times.

 

[Acleron]

Within the field of physics, it seems to me that scientific thinking that is recognizable as modern began with Galileo (1564 - 1642), which would be consistent with the time frame discussed here. I think biology and other disciplines took on a modern character at later times.

That certainly was the time that certain people accepted his results and conclusions and took that as a springboard for further observation and conclusions.

Until that point, argument from authority was more important than observation.

 

[Perpetual Student]

That certainly was the time that certain people accepted his results and conclusions and took that as a springboard for further observation and conclusions.

Until that point, argument from authority was more important than observation.

I think that's true within the Christian and Muslim worlds of the dark and middle ages. If you spend some time reviewing Archimedes work, you will fine the scientific spirit (as we know it today) very much in play. Archimedes participated in many debates about his findings with contemporaries, indicating that much independent thought was going on at that time.
ARCHIMEDES

 

[Acleron]

I think that's true within the Christian and Muslim worlds of the dark and middle ages. If you spend some time reviewing Archimedes work, you will fine the scientific spirit (as we know it today) very much in play. Archimedes participated in many debates about his findings with contemporaries, indicating that much independent thought was going on at that time.
ARCHIMEDES

Agreed but the point I was making that no-one took it any further. It seemed to be an end in itself.


Galen's works in medicine is a good example, it was not only used until about the 15th century but even when mistakes were found, they were fitted into Galen's work, in fact at one stage, the changes were given as proof that anatomy had changed since Galen's time.

Even mathematics did not progress much, there was no standing on giant's shoulders except in the Muslim world. The far East made progress but not on the basis of the Elements.

But after Galileo, the progress seems to change in quality by asking the question. 'If this is correct then what else can I discover.'

That coupled to the printing press which enabled cheap documentation and dissemination of knowledge led to the explosion which is still continuing.

Well, that's my story and I'll stick to it until it's dismantled.

 

[Marduk]

the word doctor (Azu) is attested from around 3000bce in Mesopotamia, The oldest surviving medical texts are from 900 years later, but they do attest that
"He was a specialist in herbal remedies, and in older treatments of Mesopotamian medicine was frequently called "physician" because he dealt in what were often classifiable as empirical applications of medication. For example, when treating wounds the asu generally relied on three fundamental techniques: washing, bandaging, and making plasters. "

you could also make a case that people have been studying linguistics since around 3200bce and math for far longer
But isn't hunting scientific if youre doing it right ?
that started a bit earlier

 

[Perpetual Student]

Agreed but the point I was making that no-one took it any further. It seemed to be an end in itself.


Galen's works in medicine is a good example, it was not only used until about the 15th century but even when mistakes were found, they were fitted into Galen's work, in fact at one stage, the changes were given as proof that anatomy had changed since Galen's time.

Even mathematics did not progress much, there was no standing on giant's shoulders except in the Muslim world. The far East made progress but not on the basis of the Elements.

But after Galileo, the progress seems to change in quality by asking the question. 'If this is correct then what else can I discover.'

That coupled to the printing press which enabled cheap documentation and dissemination of knowledge led to the explosion which is still continuing.

Well, that's my story and I'll stick to it until it's dismantled.

I think religion (both Christianity and Islam) are at the root of the historical paralysis in science seen in the dark and middle ages.
A good example (one of many) is the Ptolemaic view of the solar system. A heliocentric system was developed by Aristarchus and was advocated by others. Ptolemy developed and many advocated his Ptolemaic system using epicycles, etc.
Aristotle, who we all know wrote about many aspects of the natural world, preferred and advocated the Ptolemaic system. Here’s where the problem begins. Aristotle’s and Ptolemy’s writings survived the exigencies of the centuries while the other writings were lost and were only known through obscure references. The Muslim world came to regard the Almagest (Ptolemy’s writings) as divinely inspired and passed it on to the west. At the same time Aristotle’s writings took on sacred status in the Christian world. Independent thinking in this area just stopped. Bishops and Mullahs decreed epicycles. Aristotle and Ptolemy were wrong but based their views on the fact that there was no evidence that the earth rotated (we cannot feel the motion – something not understood before Galileo). Aristotle’s opinions took on the level of doctrine so that any contrary opinion became heresy. Blaming Aristotle (sometimes done today) makes little sense even though he was dead wrong. It would be like blaming Aristotle (he also wrote about the classification of animals) for not knowing about evolution.

 

[Acleron]

Certainly change is feared by all religions. Change requires freedom of thought and freedom of speech, an anathema to the hierarchy. They also prefer any ideas that fit in with their particular delusion. The earth not being the centre of the universe certainly shook them. The parallels between religion and Stalinism (Lysenkoism) in this respect are striking. So perhaps the paralysis should be expanded from religion to tyranny.

But this begs the question, did religion lose its grip in the scientific renaissance or was there another reason why science blossomed?

 

[azzthom]

One of the problems associated with any debate about science vs religion IMO, is in establishing exactly what any religion is proposing as an explanation for a given phenomenon. For example, other posters have talked about the old belief that the Earth was at the Centre of the universe. This has nothing to do with religion! The Bible, as far as I am aware, does not say that the Sun orbits the Earth. As mentioned earlier by another poster, it was purely a matter of which texts survived and/or were most widely copied. It is not that religion is entirely blameless in 'stifling' science, it's just that the position adopted by the various churches was inherited from the authors of the surviving texts.

Astronomy, architecture, medicine, engineering, selective breeding, metallurgy, mathematics and many other branches of science, are far older than religion, or at least any extant religion. The very existence of sites like Giza or Stonehenge points to groups of people who had built on the knowledge of earlier generations. The same could be said of the existence of dogs, cats and cows. We know that copper and bronze tools were in common use. Bronze is an alloy, and requires knowledge and understanding to create.

In short, I think the question of 'When did science begin?' is, at least in part, really about how much credit we think our ancient ancestors deserve for their achievements. I say it's quite a lot.

 

[Acleron]

One of the problems associated with any debate about science vs religion IMO, is in establishing exactly what any religion is proposing as an explanation for a given phenomenon. For example, other posters have talked about the old belief that the Earth was at the Centre of the universe. [I]This has nothing to do with religion![/I] The Bible, as far as I am aware, does not say that the Sun orbits the Earth. As mentioned earlier by another poster, it was purely a matter of which texts survived and/or were most widely copied. It is not that religion is entirely blameless in 'stifling' science, it's just that the position adopted by the various churches was inherited from the authors of the surviving texts.

Astronomy, architecture, medicine, engineering, selective breeding, metallurgy, mathematics and many other branches of science, are far older than religion, or at least any extant religion. The very existence of sites like Giza or Stonehenge points to groups of people who had built on the knowledge of earlier generations. The same could be said of the existence of dogs, cats and cows. We know that copper and bronze tools were in common use. Bronze is an alloy, and requires knowledge and understanding to create.

In short, I think the question of 'When did science begin?' is, at least in part, really about how much credit we think our ancient ancestors deserve for their achievements. I say it's quite a lot.

It may have nothing to do with the documents that they use to prop up their beliefs, it is the maintenance of the status quo that is necessary to prevent freely ranging thinking.

Although, as it happens, the christian bible contains:-

Ecclesiastes 1:5
The sun rises and the sun sets, and hurries back to where it rises.

 

[Perpetual Student]

Some of this conversation clearly revolves around what one is willing to call science. A liberal enough definition will have the beginnings of science in prehistory.
In that case, the question, "when did science start" has no clear answer. We could go so far as to say that a bird is using science when it constructs a nest. But I don't think anyone would find that very meaningful.
When mankind first discovered how to make fire, was that doing science? Or is science the understanding of what fire is and why the procedure used to made fire works? I tend to reserve the word "science" for this latter kind of understanding and not simply knowing how do do something like making fire or planting a crop.

 

[azzthom]

Some of this conversation clearly revolves around what one is willing to call science. A liberal enough definition will have the beginnings of science in prehistory.
In that case, the question, "when did science start" has no clear answer. We could go so far as to say that a bird is using science when it constructs a nest. But I don't think anyone would find that very meaningful.
When mankind first discovered how to make fire, was that doing science? Or is science the understanding of what fire is and why the procedure used to made fire works? I tend to reserve the word "science" for this latter kind of understanding and not simply knowing how do do something like making fire or planting a crop.

I agree. The point I was making earlier is that making bronze or building a pyramid require understanding rather than just knowledge. IMO, such feats strongly suggest the efforts of earlier generations being improved upon. Such achievements are clearly representative of progress within the appropriate sphere. It is that progress that I think represents science.

 

[crimresearch]

Some of this conversation clearly revolves around what one is willing to call science. A liberal enough definition will have the beginnings of science in prehistory.
In that case, the question, "when did science start" has no clear answer. We could go so far as to say that a bird is using science when it constructs a nest. But I don't think anyone would find that very meaningful.
When mankind first discovered how to make fire, was that doing science? Or is science the understanding of what fire is and why the procedure used to made fire works? I tend to reserve the word "science" for this latter kind of understanding and not simply knowing how do do something like making fire or planting a crop.

I would agree that the word 'science' alone leaves too much room. If we consider the idea 'When did the scientific method begin', we might want to put 'lore' and 'invention/discovery' aside, and ask where promulgation and replication began.

Well before Galileo, I would guess.

 

[arthwollipot]

At the time of Galileo, the Church upheld the Aristotlean vision of the sun and planets going around the earth, so I would argue that there was a religious component to that.

 

[epepke]

Science starts at birth or shortly thereafter. Pretty much every human is born with the ability to do science.

The modern pattern of communicating science started with Newton. Galileo came close but no cigar.

I'm sure that many ancients did science well, way back when, but without modern systems and standards of communication, it didn't really take off.

 

[fagin]

When Uggh picked up a stick, hit Garrrgh,and Garrrgh said "Ug gug brrraaag ow!"*



*"I say old chap, that hurt a bit."

 

[crimresearch]

Science starts at birth or shortly thereafter. Pretty much every human is born with the ability to do science.

The modern pattern of communicating science started with Newton. Galileo came close but no cigar.

I'm sure that many ancients did science well, way back when, but without modern systems and standards of communication, it didn't really take off.

How do we figure that Roger Bacon, or people from Egypt or China or even Sumeria didn't have enough communication to share observations, hypotheses, testing and results long before Newton?

How did they develop mathematical principles and calculators, laws of physics, chemistry, and so forth?

 

[Perpetual Student]

Knowing how to make fire, plant crops and build pyramids may be doing science in some sense. In my view, however, doing science is more than that. The example of Eratosthenes, calculating the circumference of the earth for no purpose other than to know the length of the circumference is an instance of doing science. He may not have had the sophisticated tools and methods of modern science, but in my view, what he did was clearly science. There are a multitude of other similar discoveries in the ancient world done with the same spirit of inquiry, with no necessary practical purpose.

Eratosthenes calculated the circumference of the Earth without leaving Egypt. Eratosthenes knew that on the summer solstice at local noon in the Ancient Egyptian city of Swenet (known in Greek as Syene, and in the modern day as Aswan) on the Tropic of Cancer, the sun would appear at the zenith, directly overhead (he had been told that the shadow of someone looking down a deep well would block the reflection of the Sun at noon). He also knew, from measurement, that in his hometown of Alexandria, the angle of elevation of the sun was 1/50th of a circle (7°12') south of the zenith on the solstice noon. Assuming that the Earth was spherical (360°), and that Alexandria was due north of Syene, he concluded that the meridian arc distance from Alexandria to Syene must therefore be 1/50 = 7°12'/360°, and was therefore 1/50 of the total circumference of the Earth. His knowledge of the size of Egypt after many generations of surveying trips for the Pharaonic bookkeepers gave a distance between the cities of 5000 stadia (about 500 geographical miles or 800 km). This distance was corroborated by inquiring about the time that it takes to travel from Syene to Alexandria by camel. He rounded the result to a final value of 700 stadia per degree, which implies a circumference of 252,000 stadia. The exact size of the stadion he used is frequently argued. The common Attic stadion was about 185 m,[9] which would imply a circumference of 46,620 km, i.e. 16.3% too large. However, if we assume that Eratosthenes used the "Egyptian stadion"[10] of about 157.5 m, his measurement turns out to be 39,690 km, an error of less than 2%.[11]

ERATOSTHENES

 

[Humes fork]

Some of this conversation clearly revolves around what one is willing to call science. A liberal enough definition will have the beginnings of science in prehistory.
In that case, the question, "when did science start" has no clear answer. We could go so far as to say that a bird is using science when it constructs a nest. But I don't think anyone would find that very meaningful.
When mankind first discovered how to make fire, was that doing science? Or is science the understanding of what fire is and why the procedure used to made fire works? I tend to reserve the word "science" for this latter kind of understanding and not simply knowing how do do something like making fire or planting a crop.

I think this is the best reply in the thread. Though was the shift in calling it "science" instead of "natural philosophy" caused by a particular change, or was it merely a switch with words? A lot of "natural philosophy" is clearly scientific.

 

[Inzababa]

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.

I like that answer

I don't know whether he's the first official, "known" scientist, but it's pretty far back :

Here's a quote from Wikipedia about Aristotle (my bold and underline)

More than twenty-three hundred years after his death, Aristotle remains one of the most influential people who ever lived. According to the philosopher Bryan Magee, "it is doubtful whether any human being has ever known as much as he did".[71] Aristotle was the founder of formal logic,[72] pioneered the study of zoology, and left every future scientist and philosopher in his debt through his contributions to the scientific method.[73][74] Despite these achievements, the influence of Aristotle's errors is considered by some to have held back science considerably.

One of his books, is actually called "Physics".

 

[epepke]

How do we figure that Roger Bacon, or people from Egypt or China or even Sumeria didn't have enough communication to share observations, hypotheses, testing and results long before Newton?

How did they develop mathematical principles and calculators, laws of physics, chemistry, and so forth?

I don't know if we figure it. It's entirely possible that they did, but that the records were lost, possibly due to some religious or ideological expurgation. Maybe, if that happened, it could happen again, which I find rather frightening.

It's just that from what we know, modern communication started with Newton. Galileo's dialogues weren't quite there. Newton's papers probably wouldn't be accepted today, but he was moving in a modern direction.

Basic mathematical principles and calculators and laws of physics are probably easier to figure out by one person or a small number of people, but now we've gotten to the point where the advanced concepts require a global network of people checking each others' work. It probably also requires a modern breakup of classism, sexism, and other assorted isms to do it.