overview of the course - african studies€¦ · web viewhistory of science 1h 2012-13. science...

HISTORY OF SCIENCE 1H 2012-13

Science Studies UnitSchool of Social and Political Science

University of Edinburgh

History of Science 1h (SCSU08002) – 2012/13

Chisholm House, High School YardsEdinburgh, EH1 1LZ

CONTENTS

Overview of Course 3

Communication 3

Lecture times and location 3

Aims & Objectives 4

Course Regulations and Procedures 4

Course Delivery 4

Course Readings 5

Assessment Procedures 5

Submission Deadlines 5

Late Essay Submissions/Extensions 6

Grades 6

Re-sit 6

Plagiarism 7

On Writing Essays 7

Institute for Academic Development Provision for undergraduate students 10

Course Representatives 11

Disabled Students 11

List of Lectures, with recommended readings 12

Professor John Henry 2


OVERVIEW OF THE COURSE

History of Science 1h is a free-standing, 20-credit, level 1 half-course run by the Science Studies Unit. It is available to all students studying in the College of Humanities and Social Science and in the College of Science and Engineering.

Course Organiser John Henry, Science Studies Unit, Chisholm House, High School Yards, Edinburgh, EH1 1LZ Email: [email protected] Tel: 0131 650 4262

Course Secretary Roisin O’Fee, School of Social & Political Science, Undergraduate Teaching Office, Chrystal Macmillan Building, 15a George Square, EH8 9LD Email: [email protected] Tel: 0131 651 3060

COMMUNICATION

During the course of the year, all important information for the class will be announced in lectures. Information and announcements will also be posted on Learn. In the first instance please contact the Course Secretary for all admin related queries and the Course Organiser for all course-content related queries via email. If you have questions of a more personal nature that you wish to discuss with the Course Organiser, Professor Henry, you should either approach him after one of the lectures, or email him to arrange an appointment. Queries will be responded to as soon as possible. As with your student sms email account please get in the habit of checking Learn on a daily basis.

The Learn site for this course includes a “Discussions” tool that enables you to post messages, questions or observations relevant to the course on a bulletin board where the course lecturer and other students can read them. This is a useful way of raising practical questions that may be of interest to other members of the class – for instance if some aspect of the course administration is unclear to you. It is also a useful way of raising questions about the academic content of the course, and for provoking discussions that fellow students may wish to contribute to, as well as staff.

LECTURE TIMES AND PLACE

Weeks 1-10, Semester 1

Type Day Start End Area

Lecture Monday 17:10 18:00 Appleton Tower – Lecture Theatre 3

Lecture Tuesday 17:10 18.00 Appleton Tower – Lecture Theatre 3

Lecture Thursday 17:10 18.00 Appleton Tower – Lecture Theatre 3

N.B. This course has no tutorials.



AIMS AND OBJECTIVES

The course aims to provide a broad overview of some of the most salient developments in the history of Western science. These include the influence of Ancient Greek philosophy and Christian theology on the origins of modern scientific thinking, the development of the experimental method, of modern views on the nature of the cosmos, of Newtonian science, and of theories of biological evolution. It should provide an understanding of the intellectual bases of these developments as well as the chronological framework within which they took place.

The course aims also to reveal the importance of the cultural context for an understanding of scientific discovery and the establishment of scientific orthodoxy and authority. Scientific knowledge is shown to be a part of our culture not something that transcends it or is imposed upon it. Scientific authority is shown to be something which has developed over time from humble beginnings to today’s predominance in our culture. In turn it is hoped that this will lead to a more critical and questioning approach to currently held scientific theories and their claims to unchallengeable authority.

As a course in historical study, another objective is to provide an introduction to historical methods of research and argument. As with all historical studies it is hoped that the course will point to the need for a culturally relative perspective when trying to understand the past, while at the same time revealing how difficult it is to escape our own cultural perspective.

Students successfully completing the course will be expected to be able to:

Discuss the changing nature and social organisation of the natural sciences from the ancient world to the present day

Discuss the dominant ideas about the natural world and its operations that have prevailed in different historical periods

Discuss how ideas about the natural world relate to the wider social and cultural context in which they are articulated

Critically evaluate the use of historical evidence in historical argument

COURSE REGULATIONS AND PROCEDURES

The History of Science course is offered by the School of Social and Political Science. Make sure, therefore, that you consult the Social and Political Science Student Handbook as all the regulations detailed there apply to this course. This is available on Learn and also from the Undergraduate Teaching Office located on the ground floor of the Chrystal Macmillan Building, 15a George Square.

COURSE DELIVERY

The course is taught by a combination of lectures and self-directed learning based on a course textbook specially written for the course (A Short History of Scientific Thought by John Henry), and a list of further required and recommended readings. The lectures will provide you with a general framework – both chronological and interpretative – for understanding the development of science over the past two and a half thousand years. The reading material provides additional information – but more importantly, it will also deepen your understanding of the topics presented in the lectures. If you don’t attend the lectures, you will find it difficult to understand some of the arguments being developed in the readings. If you don’t do the readings, your understanding of the history of science will remain superficial.



COURSE READINGS

Each lecture has two readings designated as Essential. The first of these is the relevant chapter from the course textbook, A Short History of Scientific Thought (Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan, 2012), the other essential readings are all available on-line through Learn; much of the other recommended readings are available on reserve in the Main, Darwin, and James Clerk Maxwell Libraries. Note that resources are limited; therefore do not leave preparation for the assignments to the last minute. Try to plan in advance and do the readings throughout the term. Multiple copies of the course textbook are available in the library but you can buy your own copy from Blackwell’s University Bookshop

ASSESSMENT PROCEDURES

History of Science 1h will be assessed solely on the basis of two pieces of work: a short assessment approx. midway through the course [for 30% of the overall mark], and a longer, final essay of c.2000 words which completes the course, for the remaining possible 70% of the overall mark, on a topic selected from a set list. Most aspects and components of the course will be delivered and administered via Learn.

In order to pass the course, the long essay MUST be passed.

The paper(s) must represent your own independent work. All sources used must be acknowledged and all quotations properly indicated. Treat this requirement with the utmost seriousness: failure to do so amounts to plagiarism. Plagiarism detection software is used to facilitate detection. See the section below on “Plagiarism Prevention and Detection” for further information, and http://www.aaps.ed.ac.uk/regulations/Plagiarism/Guidance/StudentGuidance.doc.

SUBMISSION OF ASSIGNMENTS DEADLINES:

SHORT ASSESSMENT: Friday, 26 October 2012, 3.00pm

LONG ESSAY: Friday, 14 December 2012, 3.00pm

AUGUST RESIT: Monday, 12 August 2013, 3.00pm

Written work must be uploaded via Learn AND a hard copy submitted to the HoS essay dropbox by the above deadlines. The dropbox is located to the side of the reception desk in the Chrystal Macmillan Building, 15a George Square. Instructions will be given nearer the deadline.

PLEASE BE AWARE THAT BOTH ELECTRONIC AND HARD COPY SUBMISSIONS ARE SUBJECT TO THE SAME DEADLINE!


http://www.aaps.ed.ac.uk/regulations/Plagiarism/Guidance/StudentGuidance.doc


LATE ESSAY SUBMISSION/EXTENSIONS

There are formal procedures for requesting an extension and penalties for late submission. The penalty will be a reduction of five marks per working day (i.e. excluding weekends) for up to five days. For work handed in more than five days late a mark of zero will be recorded. Check here for full details on submission penalties:http://www.sps.ed.ac.uk/undergrad/year_1_2/assessment_and_regs/coursework_requirements

If there is good reason for not meeting a coursework deadline, a student may request an extension from the Course Organiser: John Henry and cc. Roisin O’Fee. Extension requests MUST be made and granted before the deadline with supporting evidence. A good reason is illness, or serious personal circumstances, but NOT pressure of work or poor time management. If you think you will need a longer extension than 5 days, or your reasons are particularly complicated or of a personal nature, you should discuss the matter with your Director of Studies. There are NO LATE SUBMISSIONS for the final paper without express consent from the Course Organiser, which must be supported with documentation from your DoS.

GRADES

Grades on your first assessment will be returned with a provisional mark. This is meant to help you assess your progress toward the overall pass mark of 40%. The mark has to be provisional because final marks can only be determined after consultation with the External Examiner at the end of the course. The final mark represents the assessment of your overall performance.

Usually provisional marks provide a good guide to your final mark, but you should know that sometimes the External Examiner may disagree with the provisional marks given out by the internal marker. Typically this will only lead to a change, up or down, of 2 or 3%. Occasionally, however, larger changes are made by the Board of Examiners. You must bear this in mind, so aim to give yourself a good safety margin.

Final grade for the course: Official results are sent out to students by REGISTRY, not the Course Organiser or Course Secretary.

RE-SIT

Students whose work fails to meet the Pass standard in the June Diet are entitled to take the Re-sit exam in August 2013. Another long essay (c.2000 words) must be written to a different topic selected from a fresh list of topics posted on Learn shortly after 24 May, 2013. This essay will be worth 100%

Your August Re-sit essay must be uploaded onto Learn and submitted in hard-copy to the HoS essay dropbox by 3pm, on Monday, 12 August 2013.

Students who fail twice in any given academic year can re-sit in August of the following year, without re-attending the course, always providing it is running in that year. Students should also be aware that course content may have changed somewhat in the intervening Year. The onus is on


http://www.sps.ed.ac.uk/undergrad/year_1_2/assessment_and_regs/coursework_requirements


the students to check this by contacting the Course Organiser well in advance of the 12 August 2013 submission date.

Students who fail twice in any given year may re-attend the whole course in the following Year, should they wish to do so, providing this has been approved by their DoS/Academic Adviser.

PLAGIARISM PREVENTION & DETECTION

In the context of growing academic concerns about plagiarism throughout the Higher Education Sector, the School of Social and Political Science now uses Turnitin plagiarism detection software to assist in the detection of plagiarism. TurnitinUK is an online service which searches the web and extensive databases of reference material, as well as content previously submitted by other users. Each new submission is compared with all the existing information.

Passages copied directly or very closely from existing sources will be identified by the software, and both the original and the potential copy will be displayed for the tutor to view. Where any direct quotations are relevant and appropriately referenced, the course tutor will be able to see this and will continue to consider the next highlighted case. For more information see: http://www.aaps.ed.ac.uk/regulations/Plagiarism/Guidance/StudentGuidance.doc

ON WRITING ESSAYS

What follows are some hints about how to write essays; it can therefore be safely ignored by anyone who is already confident of their essay-writing skills, although even the confident may need to read the section headed “Guide to referencing”.

History isn’t just about remembering datesYour essay should be an exercise in the writing of history, and that means you should not be satisfied with writing a chronicle of “one damned thing after another”. Historical writing is a creative attempt to reconstruct the past from the available evidence, in the most convincing manner possible. As well as describing the life and work of a past thinker, for example, you should also try to understand and explain why that thinker believed what he believed and did what he did, and why his contemporaries reacted to his work the way that they did. What makes history more interesting than a mere catalogue of facts is this endeavour to explain and understand.

The Importance of AnalysisAccordingly your essay should include a strong element of analysis, as well as description. So, if you were asked, for example, to discuss whether Copernicus was revolutionary or conservative in his astronomical ideas, it would not do simply to describe his work. You should suggest how a particular aspect of his thinking could be seen as innovatory or as traditionalist, and compare it with other aspects of his work. You should be careful, however, not to judge Copernicus by your own standards or the standards of current science. Whether one of Copernicus's ideas was a radical departure from tradition can only be decided by knowing what the tradition was in his day. It cannot be decided on the grounds that, in your twentieth-century opinion, it is more or less “scientifically correct”. Similarly, if you choose to write about the origins of the experimental method, you should not be satisfied with saying that the origins were x, y, and z. If the descriptive aspect of your essay reveals that x was something previously known, your analysis should explain why x was newly regarded as important when previous thinkers had not judged it important; whether it was changed in any way, and if so why. If, on the other hand, you judge y to be another source of the experimental method, but one which was unknown before, say, William Gilbert, you need to consider what factors might have led Gilbert to consider this to be a useful procedure, and Professor John Henry 7

http://www.aaps.ed.ac.uk/regulations/Plagiarism/Guidance/StudentGuidance.doc


why he thought of it when others didn’t, and so on. When discussing the historical contributions of individual thinkers it is important to bear in mind that their achievements are never adequately explained by declaring them to be geniuses. If we wish to understand how and why Galileo discovered the law of free fall, it is no explanation to say he achieved this because everybody else was an idiot and he wasn’t. Similarly, it won’t do to say he was a genius and nobody else was. By the same token, it will not do to refer to “the Truth” for explanations either. It is no explanation to say that Newton saw the Truth of the way things are, when others failed to see it. G. W. Leibniz, one of the greatest intellectuals of all time, was convinced that Newton was wrong, and he was convinced of this for reasons that Newton was unable to comprehend. One of these reasons was Leibniz’s conviction that space could not be an absolute entity of the kind Newton claimed it was, but must be a relative notion. Since Einstein we’ve all come round to accepting Leibnizian views on space, but for two hundred years before Einstein the Newtonian view was undeniably dominant. Truth changes with history. The role of the historian of science is to understand and explain why people held to the truths they thought were obvious and undeniable, and why such convictions change. Finally, you are bound to be selective with regard to what you include in your essay; so you should always show what is the significance of the facts you recount, why you think they should be picked out as historically important. The general rule here should be that the things you choose to concentrate upon in your essay should be the most important for our historical understanding.

Structure and OrganisationYou should try to put your argument across in the clearest possible terms and this usually means providing your essay with a clear structure in which the development of your thesis can be seen. It is often most helpful for the reader to have an introduction in which the main aim of the essay is stated, together with an outline of your argument and the stages it will go through in order to make your point. Having done that, you should try to stick to that outline as you proceed. Breaking the essay into separate parts with sub-headings is probably the clearest way of guiding the reader but it is not essential. You should end your essay with a conclusion which “hammers home” your argument—do not throw in anything new at this stage—and brings together the different elements of your discussion. Your essay will be judged on how well you have marshalled the evidence to support your case. There are few answers in historical writing which can be said to be categorically “correct” or “incorrect”; all the historian can do is present more or less persuasive accounts of how it might have been. It follows that you do not have to agree with the lecturer; his opinions may be based on selective reading of the evidence (almost certainly), ignorance of crucial counter-evidence (probably), or poor argumentation (heaven forbid!). The history of science, and indeed much of the history of mankind, can be seen as a saga of slavishly following authority figures. You should take heed of Bacon, Galileo and others who tried to urge us to think things through for ourselves.

When writing your papers pay attention to spelling, punctuation and grammar. Bad English, and errors in spelling, punctuation and grammar, will be penalised. Marks will be deducted. You could lose up to 10% in this way, so take this warning seriously. Take pride in cultivating a good and clear style. You should also avoid the use of non-academic sources, especially from the Internet, such as Wikipedia! Try to rely instead on the required and recommended readings provided in the Course Handbook and in the lectures.

Never 'lift' passages—even as little as a sentence—from a book or article without putting them in quotation marks. Doing that is plagiarism, and may well result in a fail mark for your essay, however good it is otherwise. Either use quotation marks or put things in your own words. You should then cite the source. Referencing is important. The fundamental purpose of proper referencing is to provide the reader with a clear idea of where you obtained your information, quote, idea, etc. Lack of proper referencing will be penalised with the allocation of marks for essay(s).Professor John Henry 8


Guide to referencing

Your essay should include at the end a Bibliography—a list of the works consulted during the research and writing of the essay. Several styles of formatting bibliographies are available, but the most important thing is to be consistent—don’t mix different styles in the same bibliography. Some styles of bibliography also dovetail with a style for referencing within the text of your essay. Consider, for example, the so-called Harvard system, which works as follows.

1. After you have quoted from or referred to a particular text in your essay, or even if you simply wish to cite an authority which backs up the claim you are making, add in parentheses the name of the author of the relevant work, the year of publication (and, if appropriate, the page numbers, usually after a colon). A reference in the text, therefore, should look like this: (Dear 2005: 28-30). You then need to make sure that the cited work appears in your bibliography. Here is an example of a quoted passage and its proper citation:

Quotation in essay:

‘Galileo’s views have been typical for scientists during the last three centuries, not only on scientific method, but also on the relations between science, religion and politics’ (Crowther, 1967: 246).

Book entry in bibliography:

Crowther, J. G. 1967, The Social Relations of Science. Revised edition. London: Cresset Press.

Note the sequence: author, year of publication, title, edition or translation information if needed, place of publication, publisher.

2. If you are employing someone else’s arguments, ideas or categorization, you will need to cite them even if you are not using a direct quote. One simple way to do so is as follows:

Cassidy (1992: 92) argues that Heisenberg’s major concern was not physics but metaphysics.

In this case, a page number can be provided, but in other cases, you may simply want to refer to the work as a whole:

Smith and Wise (1989) have clearly shown the role of industrialization in the development of Victorian physical theory.

3. Your sources may well include journal articles, book chapters, and internet sites. Below we show you how to cite these various sources.

(i) Chapters in book:In your essay, cite the author, e.g. (Pelling, 2002: 36).In your bibliography details should be arranged in this sequence: author of chapter, year of publication, chapter title, editor(s) of book, title of book, place of publication, publisher, article or chapter pages.

For example: Cunningham, A. 1987. ‘William Harvey: The Discovery of the Circulation of the Blood’, in R. Porter (ed.). Man Masters Nature. London: BBC Books. Pp. 65-76.



(ii) Journal article:

In your essay, cite the author, e.g. (Zetterberg, 1980: 85).

In your bibliography, details should be arranged in this sequence: author of journal article, year of publication, article title, journal title, journal volume number, article pages.

For example: Zetterberg, J. Peter, 1980. ‘The Mistaking of “the mathematicks” for Magic in Tudor and Stuart England’, Sixteenth Century Journal, 11: 83-97.

(iii) Internet sites:

If the site has an author cite in the text as normal, e.g. (Van Helden, 1995).

In the bibliography, provide a full reference which should include author, date, title of website and URL address:

For example: Van Helden, A. and Burr, Elizabeth. The Galileo Project available at:http://galileo.rice.edu/

If the site has no author, I’d be inclined not to use it. But if you insist, refer to it by its title in brackets in your text, and then provide full details of the URL, etc. in your bibliography.

If you use Wikipedia be aware that many articles are unreliable and you should therefore check everything you take from it. In which case, you might as well cite the source you used to check, and leave Wikipedia out.

Sexist, racist, and ‘disablist’ language

The language we use can often contain assumptions that the experiences of one group of people are the same for the whole of humanity, especially with regard to sex and race. The gist of our advice is that you should never use male nouns and pronouns when you are referring to people of both sexes (use a plural 'they', 'their' or think of a different way to phrase your argument; or for instance use 'he or she'). You should also never use language that is racially derogatory or insulting towards people with disabilities or any other group. This does not mean that you have to stick to a narrow range of neutral views or opinions, but that your arguments have to be expressed in language that is both precise and objective.

Institute for Academic Development Provision for undergraduate students

The Study Development Team at the Institute for Academic Development (IAD) provides resources and workshops aimed at helping all students to enhance their learning skills and develop effective study techniques. Resources and workshops cover a range of topics, such as managing your own learning, reading, note making, essay and report writing, exam preparation and exam techniques.

The study development resources are housed on 'LearnBetter' (undergraduate), part of Learn, the University's virtual learning environment. Follow the link from the IAD Study Development web page to enrol: www.ed.ac.uk/iad/undergraduatesWorkshops are interactive: they will give you the chance to take part in activities, have discussions, exchange strategies, share ideas and ask questions. They are 90 minutes long and held


http://www.ed.ac.uk/iad/undergraduates

http://galileo.rice.edu/


on Wednesday afternoons at 1.30pm or 3.30pm. The schedule is available from the IAD Undergraduate web page (see above).

Workshops are open to all undergraduates but you need to book in advance, using the MyEd booking system. Each workshop opens for booking 2 weeks before the date of the workshop itself. If you book and then cannot attend, please cancel in advance through MyEd so that another student can have your place. (To be fair to all students, anyone who persistently books on workshops and fails to attend may be barred from signing up for future events.)

Study Development Advisors are also available for an individual consultation if you have specific questions about your own approach to studying, working more effectively, strategies for improving your learning and your academic work. Please note, however, that Study Development Advisors are not subject specialists so they cannot comment on the content of your work. They also do not check or proof read students' work.

To make an appointment with a Study Development Advisor, email [email protected] (For support with English Language, you should contact the English Language Teaching Centre.)

COURSE REPRESENTATIVES

Two course reps will also be appointed at an early stage in the course. Among their various responsibilities, they will be expected to be available to represent your views and opinions to the lecturer. If you wish to make your views felt, but prefer to do so anonymously, you should do so through the course reps.

DISABLED STUDENTS

The School welcomes students with disabilities (including those with specific learning difficulties such as dyslexia) and is working to make all its courses accessible. If you have special needs which may require adjustments to be made to ensure access to such settings as lectures, tutorials or exams, you should discuss these with your Director of Studies who will advise on the appropriate procedures.

You can also contact the Student Disability Service (http://www.ed.ac.uk/schools-departments/student-disability-service/home), Third Floor, Main Library Building, George Square (telephone 0131 650 6828; email: [email protected]) and an Advisor will be happy to meet with you. The Advisor can discuss possible adjustments and specific examination arrangements with you, assist you with an application for Disabled Students' Allowance, give you information about available technology and personal assistance such as note takers, proof readers or dyslexia tutors, and prepare a Learning Profile for your School which outlines recommended adjustments. You will be expected to provide the Student Disability Service with evidence of disability - either a letter from your GP or specialist, or evidence of specific learning difficulty. For dyslexia or dyspraxia this evidence must be a recent Chartered Educational Psychologist's assessment. If you do not have this, the Disability Office can put you in touch with an independent Educational Psychologist.

WE LOOK FORWARD TO WORKING WITH ALL OF YOU AND HOPE YOU ENJOY THE COURSE.


mailto:[email protected]

http://www.ed.ac.uk/schools-departments/student-disability-service/home

mailto:[email protected]


COURSE CONTENTS

LECTURE 1. IntroductionIn which we look at this handbook, and outline the wonders that are to come.

LECTURE 2. Origins or Pre-history? The Problem of Change in Ancient Greek Philosophy

Essential reading: Course Textbook: John Henry, A Short History of Scientific Thought (Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan, 2012), Chapter 1, pp. 1-13.

G.E.R. Lloyd, Early Greek Science: Thales to Aristotle (London: Chatto & Windus, 1982), Ch.4, pp.36-49.

Optional reading: Mott T. Greene, Natural Knowledge in Preclassical Antiquity (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1992).

W. K. C. Guthrie, The Greek Philosophers: From Thales to Aristotle (London and New York: Routledge, 1968).Paul T. Keyser and Georgia L. Irby-Massie (eds), Encyclopedia of Ancient Natural Scientists: The Greek Tradition and its Many Heirs (London and New York: Routledge, 2008).

G. S. Kirk, J. E. Raven, and M. Schofield, The Presocratic Philosophers, Second Edition (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1983).

G.E.R. Lloyd, Early Greek Science: Thales to Aristotle (London: Chatto & Windus, 1982), Ch.2, pp.16-23.

Terence Irwin, Classical Thought (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1989), Chs. 3 & 4, pp.20-67.

David C. Lindberg, The Beginnings of Western Science: The European Scientific Tradition in Philosophical, Religious and Institutional Context, 600 BC to AD 1450 (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1992), Ch 2, pp. 21-35.

LECTURE 3. Setting the Agenda: Plato and Aristotle


Terence Irwin, Classical Thought (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1989), Ch. 7.

Optional reading: G.E.R. Lloyd, Early Greek Science: Thales to Aristotle (London: Chatto & Windus, 1982), Chs.6, 7 & 8.



W. K. C. Guthrie, The Greek Philosophers: From Thales to Aristotle (London: Methuen, 1967), Ch. 7, pp. 122-41.

David C. Lindberg, The Beginnings of Western Science: The European Scientific Tradition in Philosophical, Religious and Institutional Context, 600 BC to AD 1450 (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1992), Ch 2, pp. 35-45; Ch. 3, pp. 46-68.

E.J. Dijksterhuis, The Mechanization of the World Picture (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1961), Part I, Chs 2 and 3, pp.6-42.

LECTURE 4. After the Fall: The Dark Ages to the High Middle Ages

Essential reading:Course Textbook: John Henry, A Short History of Scientific Thought (Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan, 2012), Chapter 3, pp. 26-37, and Chapter 4, pp. 38-50.

Edward Grant, Physical Science in the Middle Ages (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1971), Ch.3, pp.20-36.

Optional reading:David C. Lindberg, The Beginnings of Western Science (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1992), Ch. 7, pp. 135-60; Ch. 8, pp. 161-82; Ch. 9, pp. 183-214; Ch. 10, pp. 215-44.

E.J. Dijksterhuis, The Mechanization of the World Picture (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1961), Part II, Ch.4, pp.126-163.

A. C. Crombie, Augustine to Galileo (London: Heinneman, 1961), Vol.I, Ch.2.

D. C. Lindberg, “The Transmission of Greek and Arabic Learning to the West”, in D. C. Linberg (ed.), Science in the Middle Ages (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1978), pp. 52-90.

For brief overviews of the importance of Islam in the history of science during the Western European Dark Ages (which is not covered in this course) see, for example, G. Anawati, “Science”, in The Cambridge History of Islam, ed. P. M. Holt (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1970), pp. 425-60; or Martin Plessner, “Science”, in The Legacy of Islam, ed. J. Schacht & C. E. Bosworth (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1974), pp. 425-60.

For those of you who like to surf the Net there is an excellent website devoted to Medieval Science, which clearly shows how wrong it is to say that nothing of significance in the history of science occurred during the Middle Ages. Check it out at http://members.aol.com/McNelis/medsci_index.html

LECTURE 5. The Renaissance and the Origins of Modern Science



http://members.aol.com/McNelis/medsci_index.html


Allen G. Debus, Man and Nature in the Renaissance(Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1978), Ch.1, pp. 1-15.

Optional reading: John Henry, The Scientific Revolution and the Origins of Modern Science, 2nd edition (Basingstoke: Palgrave, 2002), pp. 9-13.

E.J. Dijksterhuis, The Mechanization of the World Picture (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1961), Part III, Ch.1, Section C, pp. 233-40.

A.C. Crombie, Augustine to Galileo (London: Heinneman, 1961), vol.I, Ch.2, pp.51-79.

Allen G. Debus, Man and Nature in the Renaissance (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1978), Ch.4, pp.54-73.

W.P.D. Wightman, Science in a Renaissance Society (London: Hutchinson, 1972), Chs.1 and 2.

A. R. Hall, The Scientific Revolution 1500-1800 (London: Longmans, 1962), Chs. 1 and 2, pp. 1-72.

Lois N. Magner, A History of the Life Sciences (New York: M. Dekker, 1979), Ch. 4, pp. 91-114.

LECTURE 6. 1543 and all that - Copernicus’s De revolutionibus


T. S. Kuhn, The Copernican Revolution (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1957), Ch.5, pp.134-44 (first two sections), and Ch.6, pp.185-200 (first section).

Optional reading:John Henry, Moving Heaven and Earth: Copernicus and the Solar System (Cambridge: Icon Books, 2001), Chs 1-3.

A.G. Debus, Man and Nature in the Renaissance (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1971), Ch. 5, pp.74-100.

W.P.D. Wightman, Science in a Renaissance Society (London: Hutchinson, 1972), Ch.9.

A.C. Crombie, Augustine to Galileo (London: Heinneman, 1961), vol.2, Ch.2, sections 2 and 7.

David C. Lindberg, The Beginnings of Western Science (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1992), Ch. 11, pp. 245-80.

John North, The Fontana History of Astronomy and Cosmology (London: Fontana, 1994), Ch. 11, pp. 279-98.



R. S. Westfall, The Construction of Modern Science: Mechanisms and Mechanics (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1977), Ch. 1.

A. R. Hall, The Scientific Revolution 1500-1800 (London: Longmans, 1962), Ch. 2, pp. 34-72.

J. Henry, The Scientific Revolution and the Origins of Modern Science, 2nd edition (Basingstoke: Palgrave, 2002), Ch. 3, pp. 14-22 (If you only manage to get hold of the first edition, 1997, the relevant section is: Ch. 2, pp. 8-15).

For simple help on some of the technicalities of Copernican astronomy (including an animation on retrograde motion) you might like to look at: http://csep10.phys.utk.edu/astr161/lect/retrograde/copernican.html

LECTURE 7. Magical Traditions and the Role of Experiment

Essential reading:Course Textbook: John Henry, A Short History of Scientific Thought (Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan, 2012), Chapter 7, pp. 76-96.

P. Rossi, Francis Bacon: From Magic to Science (London: Routledge & Kegan Paul, 1968), Ch.1.

Optional reading:J. Henry, Knowledge is Power: Francis Bacon and the Method of Science (Cambridge: Icon Books, 2002), Chs. 5-7, pp. 42-81.

W.P.D. Wightman, Science in a Renaissance Society (London: Hutchinson, 1972), Ch.11.

J. Henry, “Magic and Science in the Sixteenth and Seventeenth Centuries”, in R.C. Olby et al. (eds), Companion to the History of Modern Science (London: Routledge, 1990), pp.583-596.

J. Henry, The Scientific Revolution and the Origins of Modern Science, 2nd edition (Basingstoke: Palgrave, 2002), Ch. 4, pp. 54-67 (in the first edition, 1997, the relevant section is Ch. 3, pp. 42-55).

H. Kearney, Science and Change 1500-1700 (London: Weidenfeld and Nicolson, 1971), Ch. 4.

A.G. Debus, Man and Nature in the Renaissance (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1978), Ch. 2, pp. 16-33.

Peter J. Bowler, The Fontana History of the Environmental Sciences (London: Fontana, 1992), Ch. 3, pp. 66-84.

If you are interested, the complete text of Natural Magick, by Giovanni Baptista Della Porta, one of the leading sources of Renaissance magical knowledge, is available on the Net. Check it out at: http://members.tscnet.com/pages/omard1/jportat3.html


http://members.tscnet.com/pages/omard1/jportat3.html

http://csep10.phys.utk.edu/astr161/lect/retrograde/copernican.html


LECTURE 8. Bacon and the Reform of Learning


Benjamin Farrington, Francis Bacon: Philosopher of Industrial Science (New York: Henry Schuman, 1949), Ch.1, pp.15-25.

Optional reading:J. Henry, Knowledge is Power: Francis Bacon and the Method of Science (Cambridge: Icon Books, 2002).

Benjamin Farrington, Francis Bacon: Philosopher of Industrial Science (New York: Henry Schuman, 1949), Chs. 6-8, pp.65-112.

Benjamin Farrington, The Philosophy of Francis Bacon (Liverpool: Liverpool University Press, 1964), Part I, pp.11-55.

J. Henry, The Scientific Revolution and the Origins of Modern Science 2nd edition (Basingstoke: Palgrave, 2002), Ch. 4, pp. 65-7 (in the first edition, 1997, the relevant section is Ch. 3 pp. 53-55).

LECTURE 9. Origins of the Experimental Method


E. Zilsel, “The Origins of William Gilbert's Scientific Method”, Journal of the History of Ideas, 2 (1941).

Optional reading:John Henry, “Animism and Empiricism: Copernican Physics and the Origins of William Gilbert’s Experimental Method”, Journal of the History of Ideas, 62 (2001), pp. 99-119.

E. Zilsel, “The Genesis of the Concept of Scientific Progress”, in P.P. Wiener and A. Noland (eds), Roots of Scientific Thought: A Cultural Perspective, pp.251-275.

A. Rupert Hall, “The Scholar and the Craftsman in the Scientific Revolution” in Marshall Clagett (ed.), Critical Problems in the History of Science (Madison: University of Wisconsin Press, 1959), pp.3-23.

Hugh Kearney, Science and Change 1500-1700 (London: Weidenfeld and Nicolson, 1971), pp. 108-13.

J. Henry, The Scientific Revolution and the Origins of Modern Science 2nd edition (Basingstoke: Palgrave, 2002), Ch. 3, pp. 33-7 and Ch. 4, pp. 60-1 (in the first edition, 1997, the relevant section is Ch. 2, pp. 23-41, and Ch. 3, p. 49).



LECTURE 10. Magic and Mathematics: Johannes Kepler


E. A. Burtt, Metaphysical Foundations of Modern Physical Science (London: Routledge & Kegan Paul, 1932), Ch.2.

Optional reading: J. B. Brackenridge, “Kepler, Elliptical Orbits and Celestial Circularity: A Study in the Persistence of Metaphysical Commitment”, Annals of Science, 39 (1982), pp.117-43.

H. Kearney, Science and Change 1500-1700 (London: Weidenfeld and Nicolson, 1971), pp.130-140.

A. R. Hall, The Scientific Revolution 1500-1800 (London: Longmans, 1962), Ch. 4, pp.117-128.


John Henry, Moving Heaven and Earth: Copernicus and the Solar System (Cambridge: Icon Books, 2001), pp. 97-110, 125-37.

J. Henry, The Scientific Revolution and the Origins of Modern Science 2nd edition (Basingstoke: Palgrave, 2002), Ch. 4, pp. 56-62 (in the first edition, 1997, the relevant section is: Ch. 3, pp. 44-50).

For interesting material on Tycho Brahe, check out the virtual exhibition about him at: http://www.mhs.ox.ac.uk/tycho/index.htm

LECTURE 11. Mechanics and Mathematics: Galileo Galilei


A. R. Hall, The Revolution in Science 1500-1750 (London: Longmans, 1983), Ch.3, pp. 73-92.

Optional reading:S. Drake, Discoveries and Opinions of Galileo (New York: Doubleday, 1957), “Introduction: First Part”, pp.1-20.

A. Koyré, “Galileo and the Scientific Revolution”, in A. Koyré, Metaphysics and Measurement (London: Chapman & Hall, 1968).

A. Koyré, “Galileo and Plato”, in Metaphysics and Measurement (London: Chapman & Hall, 1968).


http://www.mhs.ox.ac.uk/tycho/index.htm



A. R. Hall, The Scientific Revolution 1500-1800 (London: Longmans, 1962), Chs. 3 and 4, pp. 73-128.

Isabelle Stengers, “The Galileo Affair”, in M. Serres (ed.), A History of Scientific Thought: Elements of a History of Science (Oxford: Blackwell, 1995), pp. 280-314.

William R. Shea, Galileo’s Intellectual Revolution (London: Macmillan, 1972).

Ludovico Geymonat, Galileo Galilei (Ne York: McGraw-Hill, 1965).

See also The Galileo Project, a superb web site devoted to Galileo (you could stay in there all day): http://es.rice.edu:80/ES/humsoc/Galileo/

LECTURE 12. “What is Truth?”: Galileo v. The Church


W. R. Shea, “Galileo and the Church”, in D.C. Lindberg and R.L. Numbers (eds), God and Nature (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1986), pp.114-135.

Optional reading:G. de Santillana, The Crime of Galileo (London: Heinemann, 1958).

S. Drake, Discoveries and Opinions of Galileo (New York: Doubleday, 1957), “Introduction: Third Part”, pp.145-171.

R. S. Westman, “The Copernicans and the Churches”, in D.C. Lindberg and R.L. Numbers (eds), God and Nature (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1986), pp.76-113.

W. B. Ashworth, “Catholicism and Early Modern Science”, in ibid, pp.136-166.

Michael Sharratt, Galileo, Decisive Innovator (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1996), Chs. 6-8, pp. 107-80.

And if you aspire to be a computer nerd, remember The Galileo Project, at http://es.rice.edu:80/ES/humsoc/Galileo/

LECTURE 13. Tradition and Renaissance: William Harvey



http://es.rice.edu:80/ES/humsoc/Galileo/

http://es.rice.edu:80/ES/humsoc/Galileo/


A. Cunningham, “William Harvey: The Discovery of the Circulation of the Blood”, in R. Porter (ed.), Man Masters Nature (London: BBC Books, 1987), pp.65-76.

Optional reading:Andrew Gregory, Harvey’s Heart: The Discovery of Blood Circulation (Cambridge: Icon Books, 2001).

Andrew Wear, “The Heart and Blood from Vesalius to Harvey”, in R.C. Olby et al. (eds), Companion to the History of Modern Science (London: Routledge, 1990), pp.568-82.


C. Webster, “Harvey's De generatione: its origins and relevance to the theory of circulation”, British Journal for the History of Science, 3 (1967), pp.262-274.

W. Pagel, “William Harvey and the Purpose of the Circulation”, Isis, 42 (1951), pp.22-37.

C. Webster, “William Harvey's Conception of the Heart as a Pump”, Bulletin of the History of Medicine, 39 (1965), pp.508-517.

Lois N. Magner, A History of the Life Sciences (New York: M. Dekker, 1979), Ch. 5, pp. 115-36.

A. Cunningham, “Fabricius and the ‘Aristotle Project’ in Anatomical Research at Padua”, in A. Wear, R. K. French and I. M. Lonie (eds), The Medical Renaissance of the Sixteenth Century (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1985), pp. 195-222.

LECTURE 14. Descartes and the Spirit of System


Peter Dear, Revolutionizing the Sciences (Basingstoke: Palgrave, 2001), Ch. 5, pp. 80-100.

Optional reading: E. A. Burtt, The Metaphysical Foundations of Modern Physical Science (London: Routledge & Kegan Paul, 1932), Ch. 4, pp. 96-116.

Genevieve Rodis-Lewis, “Descartes’ Life and the Development of his Philosophy”, in John Cottingham (ed.), Cambridge Companion to Descartes (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1992), pp. 21-57.

Desmond Clarke, “Descartes’ Philosophy of Science and the Scientific Revolution”, in John Cottingham (ed.), Cambridge Companion to Descartes (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1992), pp. 258-85.



Hugh Kearney, Science and Change 1500-1700 (London: Weidenfeld and Nicolson, 1971), Ch.5, pp.141-186.

R. S. Westfall, The Construction of Modern Science: Mechanisms and Mechanics (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1977), Chs. 2 and 3.

J. Henry, The Scientific Revolution and the Origins of Modern Science 2nd edition (Basingstoke: Palgrave, 2002), Ch. 5, pp 68-97 (in the first edition, 1997, the relevant section is: Ch. 4, pp. 56-72).

Steven Shapin, The Scientific Revolution (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1996), pp. 30-57.

LECTURE 15. The Mechanical Philosophy and Its Influence


Martin Tamny, “Atomism and the Mechanical Philosophy”, in R.C. Olby et al. (eds), Companion to the History of Modern Science (London: Routledge, 1990), pp.597-609.

Optional reading: E. A. Burtt, The Metaphysical Foundations of Modern Physical Science (London: Routledge & Kegan Paul, 1932), Ch. 4, pp. 96-116.

Genevieve Rodis-Lewis, “Descartes’ Life and the Development of his Philosophy”, in John Cottingham (ed.), Cambridge Companion to Descartes (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1992), pp. 21-57.

Desmond Clarke, “Descartes’ Philosophy of Science and the Scientific Revolution”, in John Cottingham (ed.), Cambridge Companion to Descartes (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1992), pp. 258-85.

Hugh Kearney, Science and Change 1500-1700 (London: Weidenfeld and Nicolson, 1971), Ch.5, pp.141-186.

R. S. Westfall, The Construction of Modern Science: Mechanisms and Mechanics (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1977), Chs. 2 and 3.

J. Henry, The Scientific Revolution and the Origins of Modern Science 2nd edition (Basingstoke: Palgrave, 2002), Ch. 5, pp 68-97 (in the first edition, 1997, the relevant section is: Ch. 4, pp. 56-72).

Steven Shapin, The Scientific Revolution (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1996), pp. 30-57.



LECTURE 16. The Royal Society and the Experimental Philosophy


Michael Hunter, Science and Society in Restoration England (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1981), Ch.1, pp.8-31.

Optional reading:P.B. Wood, “Methodology and Apologetics: Thomas Sprat's History of the Royal Society”, British Journal for the History of Science, 13 (1980), pp.1-26.



Peter Dear, “Totius in verba: Rhetoric and Authority in the Early Royal Society”, Isis, 76 (1985), pp.145-161 (Also available in P. Dear (ed.), The Scientific Enterprise in Early Modern Europe, pp. 255-72).

S. Shapin, “Pump and Circumstance: Robert Boyle's Literary Technology”, Social Studies of Science, 14 (1984), pp.481-519.

J. Henry, “The Scientific Revolution in England”, in R. Porter and M. Teich (eds), The Scientific Revolution in National Context (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1992), pp. 178-210.


LECTURE 17. Magic, Mathematics and Experiment in the work of Isaac Newton


J. Henry, “Newton, Matter and Magic”, in John Fauvel et al. (eds), Let Newton Be! (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1988), Ch.6, pp.127-146.

Optional reading:A. R. Hall, Isaac Newton, Adventurer in Thought (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1996).

Frank Manuel, A Portrait of Isaac Newton (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1968), Ch.6.

J. E. McGuire and P.M. Rattansi, “Newton and the ‘Pipes of Pan’”, Notes and Rec. of Royal Soc. of London, 21 (1966), pp.108-43.



Jan Golinski, “The Secret Life of An Alchemist”, in John Fauvel et al. (eds), Let Newton Be! (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1988), Ch. 7, pp. 147-68.

B. J. T. Dobbs, “Newton’s Alchemy and his Theory of Matter”, in P. Dear (ed.), The Scientific Enterprise in Early Modern Europe (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1997), pp. 237-54.

Lord Keynes, “Newton the Man”, in Royal Society, Newton Tercentenary Celebrations (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1947), pp.27-34.

P. M. Gouk, “The Harmonic Roots of Newtonian Science”, in J. Fauvel et al. (eds), Let Newton Be! (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1988), Ch.5, pp.101-126.


Hugh Kearney, Science and Change 1500-1700 (London: Weidenfeld and Nicolson, 1971), Ch. 6.



LECTURE 18. Newton's Legacy I: Beyond Science


T. L. Hankins, Science and the Enlightenment (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1985), Ch.1, pp.1-16.

Optional reading: M. C. Jacob, The Newtonians and the English Revolution (Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1976), Ch.5.

Basil Willey, The Eighteenth-Century Background (London: Chatto & Windus, 1940), Chs 1 and 2, pp. 9-46.

C. C. Gillispie, The Edge of Objectivity (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1960), Ch.5.

LECTURE 19. Newton’s Legacy II: Subtle Fluids and Electricity




P. M. Heimann, “Ether and Imponderables”, in G. Cantor and M.J.S. Hodge (eds), The Conception of Ether: Studies in the History of Ether Theories (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1981), Ch.1.

Optional reading :R. E. Schofield, Mechanism and Materialism (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1970), Ch.8.

T. L. Hankins, Science and the Enlightenment (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1985), Ch.3.

I. B. Cohen, Franklin and Newton: An Inquiry into Speculative Newtonian Experimental Science and Franklin’s Work in Electricity (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1966).

John L. Heilbron, Electricity in the 17th and 18th Centuries (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1979), Chapters 8, 12, 13, and 14, pp. 229-49 and 290-343.

Simon Schaffer, “Natural Philosophy and Public Spectacle in the 18th Century”, History of Science, 21 (1983), pp.1-43.


Geoffrey V. Sutton, Science for a Polite Society: Gender, Culture and the Demonstration of Enlightenment (Boulder: Westview Press, 1995), Chs. 7 and 8, pp. 241-336.

LECTURE 20. The Chemical Revolution I: Priestley and Lavoisier


Stephen Toulmin, “Crucial Experiments: Priestley and Lavoisier”, Journal of the History of Ideas, 18 (1975), pp.205-220.

Optional reading:J. B. Conant, “The Overthrow of the Phlogiston Theory: The Chemical Revolution 1775-1789”, in Conant & Nash, Harvard Case Histories in Experimental Science (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1957), Vol. I, Case 2.

C. E. Perrin, “The Chemical Revolution”, in R.C. Olby, et al. (eds), Companion to the History of Modern Science (London: Routledge, 1990), Ch.17, pp.264-277.

William H. Brock, The Fontana History of Chemistry (London: Fontana, 1992), Ch.3, pp. 87-127.

Arthur Donovan, Antoine Lavoisier: Science, Administration and Revolution (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1996), especially Chs 4 and 6.



H. Butterfield, Origins of Modern Science (London: G. Bell and Sons, 1950), Ch.11.

Isabelle Stengers, “Ambiguous Affinity: The Newtonian Dream of Chemistry in the Enlightenment”, in M. Serres (ed.), A History of Scientific Thought: Elements of a History of Science (Oxford: Blackwell, 1995), pp. 372-400.

Bernadette Bensaude-Vincent, “Lavoisier: A Scientific Revolution”, in M. Serres (ed.), A History of Scientific Thought: Elements of a History of Science (Oxford: Blackwell, 1995), pp. 455-82.

LECTURE 21. The Chemical Revolution II: John Dalton’s Atomic Theory


Henry Guerlac, “The Background to Dalton's Atomic Theory”, in H. Guerlac, Essays and Papers in the History of Modern Science (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1977), Ch.14, pp.217-242.

Optional reading:Arnold Thackray, “The Origin of Dalton's Chemical Atomic Theory: Daltonian Doubts Resolved”, Isis, 57 (1966), pp.35-55.

A. Thackray, Atoms and Powers: An Essay on Newtonian Matter Theory and the Development of Chemistry (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1970), Ch.8, sections 4-6.

A. Thackray, John Dalton: Critical Assessments of His Life and Science (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1972).

William H. Brock, The Fontana History of Chemistry (London: Fontana, 1992), Ch.4, pp. 128-72.

D. P. Mellor, The Evolution of the Atomic Theory (Amsterdam: Elzevier, 1971), Ch. 4, pp. 44-64.

LECTURE 22. Natural Theology and Natural Order


Basil Willey, The Eighteenth-Century Background (Harmondsworth: Penguin, 1962), Ch.3.

Optional reading:D. R. Oldroyd, Darwinian Impacts (Milton Keyens: Open University Press, 1983), Ch.5, pp.61-72.



R. M. Young, “Malthus and the Evolutionists: the Common Context of Biological and Social Theory”, Past and Present, 43 (1969), pp.109-45, also in R. M. Young, Darwin’s Metaphor (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1985). Complete text available on the Web at: http://www.shef.ac.uk/~psysc/darwin/dar.html

P. J. Bowler, “Malthus, Darwin and the Concept of Struggle”, Journal of History of Ideas, 37 (1976), pp.631-50.

C. J. Glacken, Traces on the Rhodian Shore (Berkeley: University of California Press,1973), Chs. 8 & 11.

C. Raven, John Ray (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1950), Ch.17.

B. G. Gale, “Darwin and the Concept of a Struggle for Existence: a Study in the Extrascientific Origins of Scientific Ideas”, Isis, 63 (1972), pp.321-44.

D. Ospovat, “Darwin after Malthus”, Journal of the History of Biology, 12 (1979), pp.211-30.

Emma Spary, “Political, Natural and Bodily Economies”, in N. Jardine et al. (eds), Cultures of Natural History (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1996), pp. 178-96.

LECTURE 23. The Making of Geology I: James Hutton


P. Gerstner, “James Hutton’s Theory of the Earth and His Theory of Matter”, Isis, 59 (1968), pp.26-31.

Optional reading:Dennis R. Dean, James Hutton and the History of Geology (Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1992).

C. C. Gillispie, Genesis and Geology (New York: Harper & Row, 1959), Chs 2 & 3, pp.41-97.

R. Grant, “Hutton’s Theory of the Earth”, in L.J. Jordanova & R.S. Porter (eds), Images of the Earth (Chalfont St. Giles: British Society for the History of Science, 1979), Ch.2, pp.23-38.

J. C. Greene, The Death of Adam (Ames: Iowa State University Press, 1959), Ch.3.

Martin Guntau, “The Natural History of the Earth”, in N. Jardine et al. (eds), Cultures of Natural History (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1996), pp. 211-29.



http://www.shef.ac.uk/~psysc/darwin/dar.html


LECTURE 24. The Making of Geology II: Catastrophism & Uniformitarianism


Peter Bowler, Fossils and Progress (New York: Science History Publications, 1976), Ch.2, pp. 15-39.

Optional reading:C. C. Gillispie, Genesis and Geology (New York: Harper & Row, 1959), Chs. 4-5.

L. Eiseley, Darwin’s Century (London:Gollancz, 1959), Chs. 3 & 4.

M. Bartholomew, “Lyell and Evolution: An Account of Lyell’s Response to the Prospect of an Evolutionary Ancestry for Man”, British Journal for the History of Science, 6 (1972), pp.261-303.

M. Bartholomew, “The Singularity of Lyell”, History of Science, 17 (1979), pp.276-293.

Geof Bowker, “In Defence of Geology: The Origins of Lyell’s Uniformitarianism”, in M. Serres (ed.), A History of Scientific Thought: Elements of a History of Science (Oxford: Blackwell, 1995), pp. 483-505.

R. Porter, “Creation and Credence: The Career of Theories of the Earth in Britain, 1660-1820”, in B. Barnes & S. Shapin (eds), Natural Order (Beverly Hills: Sage, 1979), Ch.4, pp.97-123.

Martin Rudwick, “Minerals, Strata and Fossils”, in N. Jardine et al. (eds), Cultures of Natural History (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1996), pp. 266-86.


James R. Moore, “Geologists and Interpreters of Genesis in the Nineteenth Century”, in D. C. Lindberg and R. L. Numbers (eds), God and Nature: Historical Essays on the Encounter between Christianity and Science (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1986), pp. 322-350.

LECTURE 25. The History of Plants and Animals : Creation or Evolution?


J. C. Greene, The Death of Adam (Ames: Iowa State University Press, 1959), Ch.4.

Optional reading:Professor John Henry 27


C. C. Gillispie, Genesis and Geology (New York: Harper & Row, 1959), Ch.6.

M. Rudwick, The Meaning of Fossils (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1976), Ch.4.

L. Eiseley, Darwin’s Century (London: Gollancz, 1959), Chs. 1 & 2.

F. C. Haber, “Fossils and the Idea of a Process of Time in Natural History”, in B. Glass, O.Temkin and W.L. Straus, Jr. (eds), Forerunners of Darwin, 1745-1859 (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins Press, 1968), pp. 222-61.

D. Ospovat, “Perfect Adaptation and Teleological Explanation: Approaches to the Problem of the History of Life in the mid-nineteenth Century”, Studies in History of Biology, 2 (1978), pp.33-56.


There’s a good website on the history of evolutionary ideas: http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/history/evolution.html

LECTURE 26. Religion and Progress in Victorian Britain: Hugh Miller versus Robert Chambers


C. C. Gillispie, Genesis and Geology (New York: Harper & Row, 1959), Ch.6, pp.149-183.

Optional reading:Arthur Lovejoy, “The Argument for Organic Evolution before the Origin of Species, 1830-1858”, in Glass, et al., Forerunners of Darwin, 1745-1859 (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins Press, 1968), Ch.13, pp.356-414.

Loren Eisley, Darwin’s Century (London: Gollancz, 1959), Ch. 4, pp. 91-108, and Ch.5, pp.117-140.

John Henry, “Palaeontology and Theodicy: Religion, Politics and the Asterolepis of Stromness”, in M. Shortland (ed.), Hugh Miller and the Controversies of Victorian Science (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1996), pp. 151-70. (The full text of this is available on the Web at: http://www.ed.ac.uk/sociol/Research/Staff/henry_Palae.htm)

LECTURE 27. Bringing it all together? Charles Darwin and Evolution


D. R. Oldroyd, Darwinian Impacts (Milton Keynes: Open University Press, 1980), Ch.7.


http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/history/evolution.html


Optional reading:J. C. Greene, The Death of Adam (Ames: Iowa State University Press, 1959), Chs. 5 & 9.


W. Coleman, Biology in the Nineteenth Century (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1977), Ch.4.

P. Bowler, Evolution: The History of an Idea (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1984), Chs. 6 & 7.

Open University Course Booklet, The Crisis of Evolution (Milton Keynes:

Open University Press, 1974), pp.66-88.

E. Manier. The Young Darwin and his Cultural Circle (Dordrecht: Reidel, 1978), pp.29-31 and 64-66.


Peter J. Bowler, Charles Darwin, The Man and His Influence (Oxford: Blackwell, 1990 and Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1996).

Robert M. Young, Darwin’s Metaphor: Nature’s Place in Victorian Culture (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1985) (the complete text of this is available on the Web at: http://www.shef.ac.uk/~psysc/darwin/dar.html)

LECTURE 28. Darwinian Aftermath : Religion

Essential reading:Course Textbook: John Henry, A Short History of Scientific Thought (Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan, 2012), Chapter 21, pp. 24147.

R. M. Young, “The Impact of Darwin on Conventional Thought”, in A. Symondsen (ed.), The Victorian Crisis of Faith (London: SPCK, 1970), also in R.M. Young, Darwin's Metaphor (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1985). Complete text available on the Web, see above.

Optional reading:C. C. Gillispie, Genesis and Geology (New York: Harper & Row, 1959), Ch.8.


W. H. Brock and R. M. MacLeod, “The Scientists’ Declaration”, British Journal for the History of Science, 9 (1976), pp. 39-66.

J. C. Greene, Darwin and the Modern World View (Baton Rouge: Louisiana State University Press, 1961), Ch.1.


http://www.shef.ac.uk/~psysc/darwin/dar.html


Open University Course Booklet, The Crisis of Evolution (Milton Keynes: Open University Press, 1974), pp.115-26.

F. M. Turner, “Rainfall, Plagues and the Prince of Wales: A chapter in the conflict of Religion and Science”, Journal of British Studies, 8 (1974), pp. 46-65.

F. M. Turner, “Victorian Scientific Naturalism”, in C. Chant and J. Fauvel (eds), Darwin to Einstein: Historical Studies on Science and Belief (Harlow: Longman, 1980), pp. 47-68.

Allan Hunter Dupree, “Christianity and the Scientific Community in the Age of Darwin” , in D. C. Lindberg and R. L. Numbers (eds), God and Nature: Historical Essays on the Encounter between Christianity and Science (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1986), pp. 351-68.

Frederick Gregory, “The Impact of Darwinian Evolution on Protestant Theology in the Nineteenth Century” , in D. C. Lindberg and R. L. Numbers (eds), God and Nature: Historical Essays on the Encounter between Christianity and Science (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1986), pp. 369-90.

LECTURE 29. Darwinian Aftermath II: Social Science


J. C. Greene, Darwin and the Modern World View (Baton Rouge: Louisiana State University Press, 1961), Ch.3.

Optional reading:D. R. Oldroyd, Darwinian Impacts (Milton Keynes: Open University Press, 1983), Ch.16.

P. Bowler, Evolution: The History of an Idea (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1984), Ch.10.

John C. Greene, “Biology and Social Theory in the Nineteenth Century: Auguste Comte and Herbert Spencer”, in M. Claggett (ed.), Critical Problems in the History of Science (Madison: University of Wisconsin Press, 1959), pp. 419-46.

B. Barnes and S. Shapin, “Darwin and Social Darwinism: Purity and History”, in Barnes & Shapin (eds), Natural Order (Beverly Hills: Sage, 1979), pp. 125-142.

Ruth Schwartz Cowan, “Nature and Nurture: the Interplay of Biology and Politics in the Work of Francis Galton”, Studies in History of Biology, 1 (1977), pp. 133-208.



Jonathan Harwood, “Heredity, Environment, and the Legitimation of Social Policy”, in B. Barnes and S. Shapin (eds), Natural Order (Beverly Hills: Sage, 1979), pp. 231-51.

LECTURE 30. Darwinian Aftermath III: Biology


L. A. Callender, “Gregor Mendel—An Opponent of Descent with Modification”, History of Science, 26 (1988), pp. 41-75.

Optional reading:Peter J. Bowler, The Fontana History of the Environmental Sciences (London: Fontana, 1992), Ch. 10, pp. 428-78.

Peter Bowler, The Eclipse of Darwinism (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1983), Ch.8, pp.182-291.

Peter Bowler, Evolution: The History of an Idea (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1984), Ch.9, pp.233-265.

Jean-Marc Drouin, “Mendel in the Garden”, in M. Serres (ed.), A History of Scientific Thought: Elements of a History of Science (Oxford: Blackwell, 1995), pp. 506-25.

G. E. Allen, Life Science in the Twentieth Century (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1979), Ch. 5, pp. 113-46.

Robert C. Olby, Origins of Mendelism (London: Constable, 1966).


overview of the course - african studies€¦ · web viewhistory of science 1h 2012-13. science...

Documents