THE KNOWLEDGE MACHINE

An exploration of the period, beginning in 1600, “during which empirical inquiry evolved from the freewheeling, speculative frenzy of old into something with powers of discovery on a wholly new level.”

Throughout most of history, writes NYU philosophy professor Strevens, all cultures believed everything worth knowing was already known. Asked to explain the motion of the heavens, the nature of disease, or the makeup of matter, wise men in ancient Egypt, Greece, or China thought deeply and gave answers that were mostly wrong. The great leap forward came after about 1600 with the scientific revolution, which led to dazzling progress and continues to do so. There is no shortage of explanations of how scientists work. Strevens concisely summarizes the most prominent and gives them credit when he feels credit is due. Central to his thesis is what he calls the “iron rule of explanation,” which denies that knowledge follows from thinking, logic, or infallible authority. Wise men in earlier times would have disagreed because they routinely mixed philosophy with observations, and their work was suffused with teleology: the belief that everything has a purpose. Aristotle taught that objects fall because their natural place is the center of the universe. The iron rule ignores what scientists believe and “makes no attempt to…decide winners and losers.” It does not settle arguments but prolongs them by demanding an empirical test, one that all agree will provide useful evidence. “It is a rule for doing rather than thinking,” writes the author. No political, religious, or philosophical reflection allowed; just the facts. Strevens emphasizes that the rule applies to communicating research findings, generally in a professional journal, and scientists remain free to express personal feelings and find deeper meanings. Many—perhaps too many—take advantage of this, writes the author, who provides a thought-provoking and likely-to-be-controversial explanation of how scientists finally got it right.

One of the better examinations of the origins of the scientific revolution.