When did science start?

[Humes fork]

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.

That's interesting, but I'd guess that's the first instance of applied science then.

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

I guess so. I've even seen it claimed that science proper didn't start until the 20th century when Popper established the falsification criteria (though Popper is disputed). I myself found that very narrow. It would mean that Darwin was not a scientist.

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.

Well yes. The pre-Socratics could never really test their ideas.

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.

I don't think they had a concept of pseudoscience, because they didn't have our concept of science.

Science started when I gave my Sim his first chemistry set

Edited by LashL: 

Edited for civility.

Me thinks you are onto something there

Edited by LashL: 

Edited for civility.

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

Thales (among others) was before Democritus.

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.

Based on what I found on Amazon, it's a crackpot book.

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.

Those capabilities, especially the transfer of information, is one of humanity's key abilities in why it has been so successful compared to other species.

 

[Gazpacho]

Based on what I found on Amazon, it's a crackpot book.

Based on what I found on Amazon, the one-star reviewers all criticize the same chapter, and otherwise miss the author's point.

If the mention of homeopathy triggered a reaction on your part, I can tell you that the book has all of two paragraphs about it and those two paragraphs "praise" it only insofar as it gave "real" medicine a reason to purge the quackery in its own ranks.

 

[drewid]

Frequently considered to be Galileo.

Eratosthenes had a proposition, designed an experiment, took experimental data, and performed calculations to reach a conclusion, (the circumference of the earth). I'm sure his peers would have reviewed his reasoning and methods.

 

[Complexity]

Cooking or earlier.

 

[Humes fork]

Based on what I found on Amazon, the one-star reviewers all criticize the same chapter, and otherwise miss the author's point.

If the mention of homeopathy triggered a reaction on your part, I can tell you that the book has all of two paragraphs about it and those two paragraphs "praise" it only insofar as it gave "real" medicine a reason to purge the quackery in its own ranks.

"People's history", "elites". Any bells ringing? It also erects strawmen. Who is claiming hunter-gatherers were stupid? Is mainstream history rejecting that the Greeks recieved many influences from other peoples?

 

[mijopaalmc]

"People's history", "elites". Any bells ringing?

Only the ones that signal that your perception of the book have nothing to do with its content.

It also erects strawmen.

Asserting that something is a straw man doesn't make it so. The fact that the book addresses the socio-historical aspects of science doesn't make it a "crackpot book".

Who is claiming hunter-gatherers were stupid?

Where did Gazpacho claim that hunter-gathers were stupid?

Is mainstream history rejecting that the Greeks recieved many influences from other peoples?

Where was this suggested?

 

[Gazpacho]

Where did Gazpacho claim that hunter-gathers were stupid?

The title of the book's first chapter is "Were Hunter-Gatherers Stupid?" The chapter starts by presenting a historical foundation for the question.

"People's history", "elites". Any bells ringing?

I prefer to judge books by their content, not by "bells." You can read the book or not.

 

[Perpetual Student]

I'm certain that we all know that for most of mankind's existence, the world around us was explained by invoking gods, spirits and similar fictitious entities. Nevertheless, I think it's likely that many individuals in prehistoric times sought natural explanations for the things they saw and experienced and they probably came up with a few good ideas. Of course such musings died with the individual and are not documented.
Within recorded history, gods and spirits dominated the thinking of the ancient world and only occasional references to natural explanations can be found. The first systematic and persistent efforts for natural explanations are documented to have been made by the Ionian Greeks, sometimes called the Ionian Enlightenment. Was this the first real science or were the musings of those earlier individuals real science? Or does it necessitate experimentation (e.g. Archimedes) to call it science? I guess that brings us back to how we define science, as someone has already said.

 

[Acleron]

Eratosthenes had a proposition, designed an experiment, took experimental data, and performed calculations to reach a conclusion, (the circumference of the earth). I'm sure his peers would have reviewed his reasoning and methods.

He would have sieved his results.

 

[Acleron]

I'm certain that we all know that for most of mankind's existence, the world around us was explained by invoking gods, spirits and similar fictitious entities. Nevertheless, I think it's likely that many individuals in prehistoric times sought natural explanations for the things they saw and experienced and they probably came up with a few good ideas. Of course such musings died with the individual and are not documented.
Within recorded history, gods and spirits dominated the thinking of the ancient world and only occasional references to natural explanations can be found. The first systematic and persistent efforts for natural explanations are documented to have been made by the Ionian Greeks, sometimes called the Ionian Enlightenment. Was this the first real science or were the musings of those earlier individuals real science? Or does it necessitate experimentation (e.g. Archimedes) to call it science? I guess that brings us back to how we define science, as someone has already said.

Perhaps it happened earlier:-

When the race moved from hunter gatherers to farming, observation, hypothesis, prediction and experiment will have been used. This must have happened in various areas such as heredity, fertilisation and stock keeping.

Similar scientific processes must have occurred with architecture, rafting and finally sailing.

 

[Beerina]

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.

In Quicksilver, Neal Stephenson, in a fictional setting with (mostly) real characters, explores early development of science as it started with people who called themselves Natural Philosophers in the mid 1600s.

Of course, it's like saying, "What was the first Rock and Roll song?" Still, he is correct that this was a very important time as important issues were worked out.

Prior to then there was little, if any experimentation, and it was all just trying to reason with geometric analysis how the world worked. Oh, one of the major things in the book is the development of calculus to handle things geometry couldn't.


So, yes, it is reasonable that he says, "Modern science is typically said to have started in the 16th and 17th centuries during the scientific revolution."

Some of you knee-jerk way too quickly.

 

[Perpetual Student]

Perhaps it happened earlier:-

When the race moved from hunter gatherers to farming, observation, hypothesis, prediction and experiment will have been used. This must have happened in various areas such as heredity, fertilisation and stock keeping.

Similar scientific processes must have occurred with architecture, rafting and finally sailing.

I don't think that's an unreasonable way to look at it.
On the other hand, when they planted their seeds they probably invoked the fertility god and the wind god for their sails, etc. When asked how they accomplished something, their explanation likely would have included the intervention of that god.
So the question is: Is it science only when natural explanations are believed or is the mere use of experience (regardless of beliefs) that makes it science?
Mankind has been aware of how some things work for a very long time. I'm not sure that constitutes science.

 

[Acleron]

I don't think that's an unreasonable way to look at it.
On the other hand, when they planted their seeds they probably invoked the fertility god and the wind god for their sails, etc. When asked how they accomplished something, their explanation likely would have included the intervention of that god.
So the question is: Is it science only when natural explanations are believed or is the mere use of experience (regardless of beliefs) that makes it science?
Mankind has been aware of how some things work for a very long time. I'm not sure that constitutes science.

I wonder if early man had such a problem with gods as modern man.

 

[Perpetual Student]

I wonder if early man had such a problem with gods as modern man.

Ha! Good question. It seems to me that they were so overwhelmed with everything they perceived, that they used gods and spirits to deal with and explain everything around them including their own being. They probably even attributed their own thoughts to gods/spirits talking to them.

 

[Acleron]

Ha! Good question. It seems to me that they were so overwhelmed with everything they perceived, that they used gods and spirits to deal with and explain everything around them including their own being. They probably even attributed their own thoughts to gods/spirits talking to them.

We have so little data from that time period and I wince every time I see some artifact being displayed and given a religious slant.

I've recently been drawn to the Lascaux cave paintings site by the excellent blog of Dan Chure. To me, they are beautiful depictions of animal life but I fail to see any representation of religion.

Another reason I doubt religion was so oppressive then was that they were too busy just staying alive. The economy wouldn't support a useless religious section. I am not saying they didn't ascribe certain aspects of life to gods, just that the god belief wouldn't have got in the way of some sort of scientific process. Of course, if my hypothesis is correct, then religion was caused by the scientific method. As soon as there was a surplus to the economy from farming, the hucksters and shamans could move in. Much as we see today.

 

[Perpetual Student]

We have so little data from that time period and I wince every time I see some artifact being displayed and given a religious slant.

I've recently been drawn to the Lascaux cave paintings site by the excellent blog of Dan Chure. To me, they are beautiful depictions of animal life but I fail to see any representation of religion.

Another reason I doubt religion was so oppressive then was that they were too busy just staying alive. The economy wouldn't support a useless religious section. I am not saying they didn't ascribe certain aspects of life to gods, just that the god belief wouldn't have got in the way of some sort of scientific process. Of course, if my hypothesis is correct, then religion was caused by the scientific method. As soon as there was a surplus to the economy from farming, the hucksters and shamans could move in. Much as we see today.

We have stone age people around us today. To my knowledge, they all have rather rich and complex religious beliefs. It does not seem that these religions are necessarily oppressive; they are simply universally accepted. For Example. It seems to me that this is how our ancestors dealt with the mysteries around them. In my view we have little basis for religion today and it's persistence is perverse -- but that's for another thread.

 

[Almo]

Science started like this:

http://xkcd.com/242/

 

[Nova Land]

So, yes, it is reasonable that he says, "Modern science is typically said to have started in the 16th and 17th centuries during the scientific revolution."

I agree. That's something I recall hearing repeatedly, in school and other places.

It's true that science (the attempt to answer questions about the physical universe) goes back much further. But that kind of science included such things as alchemy and astrology.

The statement in the OP doesn't refer to the origins of science. It refers to the origins of modern science. And what I was taught when I was growing up is that modern science began around the 1600s.

So the statement in the OP, that modern science is typically said to have started in the 16th and 17th centuries, seems quite reasonable to me. That is what was typically said by my science teachers.

 

[Roboramma]

I don't think they had a concept of pseudoscience, because they didn't have our concept of science.

That was basically my point: until the development of modern science what we would currently consider scientific thinking and well developed and well supported scientific ideas were mixed up with what we would currently consider to be pseudoscience, and in general the people who developed them couldn't tell the difference.

 

[Dani]

I've even seen it claimed that science proper didn't start until the 20th century when Popper established the falsification criteria (though Popper is disputed). I myself found that very narrow. It would mean that Darwin was not a scientist.

Of course that's very narrow, but not for the reason you pointed out, but because there were existing theories that used that criteria before the 20th century. This is like saying primates only began to exist when humans started making taxonomic classifications.

And why Darwin doesn't pass the falsification critaria? Is there anything in his theory that isn't falsifiable?