Riffing off the title of this blog and the question, when was the Scientific Renaissance I develop my thoughts on the problems of dividing history up into artificial periods.
Riffing off the title of this blog and the question, when was the Scientific Renaissance I develop my thoughts on the problems of dividing history up into artificial periods.
Filed under Monday Blast from the Past
If your philosophy of [scientific] history claims that the sequence should have been A→B→C, and it is C→A→B, then your philosophy of history is wrong. You have to take the data of history seriously.
John S. Wilkins 30th August 2009
Culture is part of the unholy trinity—culture, chaos, and cock-up—which roam through our versions of history, substituting for traditional theories of causation. – Filipe Fernández–Armesto “Pathfinders: A Global History of Exploration”
Jon Awbrey on Artificial Bullshit! | |
thonyc on Artificial Bullshit! | |
Marius on Artificial Bullshit! | |
Anonymous on Artificial Bullshit! | |
John S. Wilkins on Horrocks Bollocks! |
Thanks for this. When I had the great fortune of meeting Allen Debus, I shook his hand and told him how much I appreciated his work, which is such a pioneering foundation of contemporary alchemy studies in the history of science. He said something I wish I could remember exactly about how when he was a grad student people thought they knew what the “scientific revolution” was all about. I can see that there’s still a need for calling attention to the artifice and problems of periodization.
Ted Hand
http://alchemicaldiagrams.blogspot.com/
http://renaissancemagic.blogspot.com/
An embarrassing read for me. Very ill and stressed out little bunny at the time.