Science and Enlightenment!
*Skip to the end of the summary to view comments*
Summary of My Understanding of the Birth of Modern Science
Science altered ideas about the place of humankind in the cosmos and challenged
the teaching of the church. It originated in Europe because it was a reinvigorated and
fragmented civilization. Institutions were independent. This arose from the idea of a
corporation: a group of people with rights to regulate and control its own members.
The most important institution to the birth of science was the university. Its autonomy
allowed its members to create its own curricula centering on the natural sciences.
These universities relied heavily on the teaching of Aristotle. Another reason why
Europe was able to develop science is because it drew extensively on knowledge of
other cultures, as the center of a massive exchange of information
It started with Copernicus’ discovery that the sun was the center and that other
planets revolved around it. But the culmination of the Scientific Revolution lay in
Newton’s discovery of Physics. The concept of universal gravitation that applied to
everything was life-changing. According to Newton, the universe functioned
according to its own scientific principles; it regulated itself and knowledge of it can
be obtained by human reason alone. Dissections of human bodies followed and
provided us with knowledge on medicine. Women were excluded from the revolution
because they could not attend the universities. Despite some conflict in beliefs, none
of the early scientists rejected Christianity. Science described the physical universe
while religion governed truth about human salvation and the purpose of life
Science and Enlightenment were aided by printing and growing literacy. People started
to apply it to human affairs such as economy. Enlightenment meant the courage to use
your own understanding, without guidance from others. Its central theme was the idea
of progress. From science and the Enlightenment came Deism, the belief in a deity
that is abstract and remote, not a personal God like the Christians believed in.
Pantheism. the belief that God and Nature were identical, also arose.
Science was very critical of itself beginning in the 19th century. More scientists began to
think of the human situation as a struggle. Darwin’s studies show that all species
compete and evolve. Marx believed that change was brought about through struggle
between the social classes.
Beyond the West, there wasn’t much interest in European science. Asian countries
only showed mild interest. China eventually accepted math. Japan later lifted the ban
on importing Western books. Islam stayed conservative and closed-off towards
science.
Comments
Minor Comment: It made me sad that women were excluded from universities. Women
make up half the population. We probably lost 50% of the discoveries we could’ve made
in the time period that women weren’t able to join in on the revolution.
The section about science and enlightenment reminded me a lot about what I learned in
my religion class last week. The definition of enlightenment is seeking truth for yourself
without guidance from others. Prof Beltramini was talking to us about science and that
how we(schools) learn science is not reason. He explained that we don’t know the
information ourselves through observation of the natural world; we learn it from textbooks
because we have faith in the scientists. This is not true reasoning. He said that in this way,
believing in modern science is similar to believing in a God: unless we observe it ourselves,
it’s not enlightenment, only blind faith.
That lecture gave me some trust issues about what I should believe in my classes. I think
this might be why I feel most confident in my writing. When writing an analysis or
constructing an argument about a piece of literature, I’m using my own understanding of
the text to create my own thoughts. It’s a little different in math or science classes. The
information is so massive in those classes that not everything can be learned through
experience so quickly. There’s an endless amount of formulas, and an even greater
amount of studies or proofs to prove those formulas.
I’m an English and Math teacher for little kids. At work, children always ask me why
something should be done. Why should I use this formula? Why do I need to indent
paragraphs? Why does this method of division work? Sometimes, I realize that I don’t
really know the answer to most of these questions. I don’t really know why we indent
paragraphs. We can always just skip a line before starting a new one right? That should
be enough of an indication of a new set of ideas. I’m not enlightened at all. I just do what
I’m told is correct most of the time. I used to think teachers were all-knowing in their field,
but maybe they aren’t? It’s like thinking that once you’re 18, you know how to be an adult.
But really, most of us just have to have faith in what we’re being told. And it’s scary
because we have to trust that most of those methods work, because it’s not like we can
verify every single thing we come across. That would take too long. Socrates believed
that it’s important to make people realize how little they know. After that, he could have
a conversation with them without arguing. They could throw questions back and forth to
understand how the world truly works. I think we should do this more. Instead of trying to
prove things, maybe more writing assignments in school should be focused on asking
ourselves important questions. There are too many deductive essays assigned and not
enough inductive essays to ask the questions and create the hypothesis. Why do we
always have to start an essay with an assumption and prove it? Can’t we write an essay
where we pose a question and arrive at a hypothesis at the end? Sorry for ranting but
those are my true thoughts.
Thank you for reading and have a wonderful day!
Comments
Post a Comment