When did science start?

I think man's curiousity came first because man (to me) would look at something and think how does that happen etc and then set out to find out the answers to his questions by experiment etc.

So you would vote for #1. I can't really disagree with that, but I was more interested in the formalization of science. It's probably impossible to draw a distinct line, but the pat answer seems to be Roger Bacon. For example, there is the book "The First Scientist" by Brian Clegg. I haven't read it. The reviews, while passable, aren't raging about it, and I wondered if someone had a better reference.

Then, there is also the challenge that Ibn al-Haytham came before Bacon. While that may be true, does the claim have any value if he didn't make a lasting impression?

I don't know much about Bacon, so if someone does, I'd like to hear about it.

Some of Aristotle's work was true science. As Resha says, without question there was science during the "golden age" of Islam from the 9th-11th centuries. And there was direct continuity between the Muslims' achievements during their golden age and European ingenuity during the Renaissance, so I don't think it's possible to separate Bacon (or Newton) from the previous achievements in the Islamic world. Calculus had been developed a good 500 years before Newton came around...

Like I said, I doubt it can be given a definitive moment. But, Bacon does serve as a good icon for what was happening in Europe at the time. He's a convenient marker for the awakening of the West.

There are other ideas that Europeans borrowed from Arabs, such as when Fibonacci introduced Arabic numerals. It was noted in my world history class that, though the Arabs invented this and the Chinese invented that, they didn't employ the ideas as fruitfully as Europeans - for various reasons. So, it seems Bacon might still serve as a milestone.



Really? I'm aware of what Archimedes did with the "method of exhaustion", but that remains a curiosity that doesn't rise to level of rigor established by Newton. Whom do you speak of Aedes?

(BTW, I've been digging around on this topic, and found a really cool paper: Scientist: The story of a word by Sydney Ross, The Annals of Science, v.18(2), June 1962. According to that paper, the word "scientist" didn't take on its modern meaning until 1834)

There were many great mathematical achievements in medieval Islam, and not just in calculus. Take a look at the calculus section of the Wiki article. I may have some academic articles that I can dig out about them if you want.

Mathematics in medieval Islam - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Here are two quotes from the Wiki article about the influence of Islamic mathematics:

Importance

I'd have to say that science began with some caveman looking up to the Moon or stars and wondering. Or should we see this as the beginning of philosophy?

it's impossible to draw a distinct line for alot of things, one can only guess.


Who knows, maybe both?

Exactly. At one point in time, the two were not separated. It is interesting to see how, as humans devise artificial boundaries, we begin to argue for their reality and solidity. I'm not one to say boundaries don't exist, but we never seem to put them in the right place.



Thanks for pointing me to this. I find wikipedia more useful as a starting point than the final word, but it looks like there are some good references at the end of the article. The people cited in the article took some important steps to laying the foundations of calculus, but I wouldn't call it calculus - just the foundations.

I'm aware that Islam had some excellent mathematicians. But, as I said, they didn't perpetuate it. To over simplify a very complex situation, the upper eschelons were happy to skim off the cream and didn't reinvest to perpetuate their successes. Prejudice kept them from incorporating ideas - a "not invented here" syndrome. So, all that really remains of their efforts is what Europeans picked up from them.

Not saying this is what you're doing, but I disagree with those who search the dregs of history for something resembling a renowned accomplishment, and then claim "so-and-so was first" as if that uproots the renowned accomplishment.

Newton is the recognized founder of calculus, and so I think the legitimate approach is to ask how much of his work is original and how much he borrowed. The legitimate challenge to Newton is Leibniz. Also, Newton relied heavily on the binomial theorem to build his ideas. He probably got his version from Pascal. Who, then, does Pascal rest upon? It appears Euclid and Omar Khayyam worked on some primitive versions, but did Pascal know about that? I haven't dug that up yet.

So, did Newton know about the Islamic mathematicians? Again, I don't have the background to say. But, with the references you've provided I can start to dive into that.

So, back to my original question, I would apply the same technique to Bacon - not a disjointed citation of what obscure person did something in outer Mongolia in the 5th century B.C., but who did Bacon build upon? I don't mean that to be combative, but as a challenge to think critically about how "science" as we now define it, came to be.

There is probably no scientist ever in history who can take credit for a discovery that is in complete isolation from predecessors -- not Newton, not Einstein, not Darwin. Furthermore, none of these seminal figures was the final word on their science either.

So while Newton and Leibniz are the towering figures in the early development of calculus, we run the risk of neglecting those who influenced them because of their centrality.

I don't know this field well enough to give you specifics. However, what is very well known is that Christian Europe and the Muslim lands in Spain / Sicily / North Africa / and the Near / Middle East began to come into close contact with one another around the time of the Crusades, the Reconquista, and the beginning of mercantilism and seafaring. This also happens to be towards the decline of the "golden age" of Islam and the start of the European "high" middle ages.

It's well recognized that lots of scholarship found its way into Europe via Islam. That is how Europe discovered Greek philosophy, esp Aristotle. But the likes of Aquinas were also influenced by prominent Muslim Aristotelians theologists (Averroes and Avicenna) and the famous Jewish Aristotelian theologist (Maimonides) who lived in Muslim lands.

There are other examples of European imitation of Muslim decorative art, illumination of texts, and the appropriation of Muslim astronomy and nautical discoveries.

So I'd bet that with some more investigation we will find that Newton and Leibniz did not make their contributions in a bubble -- but that there is a continuity between Muslim scholarship and their own.

That in no way diminishes their contribution or their legacy -- but it places them in the context of their predecessors, and I don't think one can fairly answer the question of "when science started" without addressing that.

So perhaps a better question re: Newton, Darwin, etc, is to ask what made them different? What allowed them to be paradigm-changers?

And I think the answer is synthesis. They took things that were theretofore disorganized, undeveloped, or propositional, and created elegant, parsimonious systems. And this is what generated an entirely new discipline.

I agree with everything you said, Aedes. And your question about what made Newton different is a good one.

I never said Newton operated in a bubble. He's the one with the famous quote about standing on the shoulders of giants. My challenge was to make legitimate connections between Newton, who is recognized, and those who influenced him (or, actually my challenge centered on Bacon).

I have two issues - though they are not directed at you.

1) The claim cited in your wiki article by Woepcke that Al-Karaji was "the first who introduced the theory of algebraic calculus." Maybe Woepcke himself was more careful in his book, and the quote is out of context. Regardless, it is very misleading. I think many would interpret this to mean: Al-Karaji invented calculus and Newton didn't. It doesn't mean that at all. It means he laid a foundation for Newton to build on - if Newton knew about him. It seems neither of us is qualified to say whether Newton knew of him.

2) Part of current revisionism in history is to make it more "inclusive". So, there is a tendancy to jump on things like Al-Karaji's discovery simply because he's not a Caucasian male. (Here comes my politically incorrect statement) I sense a trend toward, "Oh, look, here's a Chinese woman from Tibet who wrote an equation in 500 BC. How can we make her look important?"

I am aware of how much the to-and-fro with Islam influenced Europe. It should not be ignored. But there seems to be an aversion by some to admit that there were actually, some smart white guys who did good things as well. Maybe I just have an inferiority complex, or maybe it simply bemoans a loss of influence by the good ol' boys club, but I know I'm not the only one who's frustrated by that.

An incident that still makes me laugh: one of my other hobbies is writing fiction. Did you know there are journals that only accept work by lesbian women? That's not prejudiced? A colleague of mine threatened to start a journal that only accepts work from straight white Protestant males over the age of 40. It's funny because if any such thing existed, it would receive a hail of criticism. But not other equally exclusive ventures.

I happen to know of a journal edited by all women who accepted one of my pieces. They don't restrict themselves to women writers, but my pen name led them to believe I was female. When they found out I was male after accepting my work ... it was funny.

I don't think science ever started. I think it was there all along to be discovered.

Not sure what you mean by that. Are you saying science is a "form"? Or do you speak of the physical laws discovered by science rather than science itself?

Doesn't science constitutes all the physical forces of nature and a whole lot of other stuff we deem scientific?

If not, what is science?

I wouldn't define it that way. You are confusing the discipline and what that discipline studies. It's like saying cooking is the food rather than preparing the food. I would define science by its methods.

Further, I'm talking about a conscious effort, not an application of the word after the fact. Yes, cave men did things that were "science-like", but they had not developed a concept of scientific method.

One might be able to argue that some of the Greeks, or maybe other advanced civilizations had people with ideas of method, but it does seem hard to find any sustained effort before Bacon. And, as the article I cited claims, the modern meaning of the word didn't take shape until the 1830's - very recent.

When did science start? Does it mean when the humans start acknowledging scientific knowledge?

Science implies methods based on reason. It also implies that those methods are repeatable and generally accepted - though both of those conditions are philosophically laden.

If that is what you mean by "scientific knowledge", then I think you have a good way of looking at it. So, do you go somewhere from that starting point?

So, the question "When did science start?", isn't that an ancient history question?

It is certainly worth considering. Some have tried to argue that Aristotle was a scientist. I think he fails the test because much of what he did (brilliant and innovative as it may have been**) was largely a "thought experiment", and therefore had strong metaphysical elements. I don't try to refute that metaphysics influences science, and it is a fuzzy line, but I consider what he did more metaphysical than scientific.

Others, like Kuhn, tried to argue that Ptolemy was a scientist. There is a good case for that, but I haven't studied it enough to yet have an opinion. Since, prior to Bacon/Newton (and including Bacon/Newton), people did not separate philosophy and science, it is likely Ptolemy would fail the test for the same reasons Aristotle does, but I can't say for sure. The "first" of anything always bears some residue of the past that doesn't fit the modern definition.

Do you have anyone specific in mind?

(**Note: Our contemporary western society has a funny quirk. I think many people follow a chain that equates "scientific" with "reasonable", and "reasonable" with its synonyms such as "sensible", "tenable", and "wise". Therefore, they feel that to say Aristotle was not scientific is to say that he was a fool. Since he was obviously not a fool, he must have been scientific. We need to realize that there are other tenable thought systems besides science.)

Aristotle's biology is very much scientific -- he makes careful observations and then abstracts themes from it. His metaphysics (at least those that have been replaced by science) were actually based on observation and not thought experiments. For instance, he posited that heavenly bodies naturally move in circles and earthly bodies naturally move in straight lines.

That is observational. Without a more modern sophistication or instruments, that indeed appears to be the case whether or not it's proven to be true.