[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]
2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/sci/ - Science & Math

View post   
File: 35 KB, 640x853, ve8lMw2_d.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
9302511 No.9302511 [Reply] [Original]

Any good books on the history of science and scientific theory?

>> No.9302568

>>9302511
Who is this semen demon

>> No.9302602
File: 256 KB, 1600x800, emason.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
9302602

Which level are we talking?

Of course, the classic is Thomas Kuhns structure of scientific revolutions
(15 pages long Wiki article on the book and its inpact: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Structure_of_Scientific_Revolutions)) but there also has been quite some development since.
A book I love is Modern Algebra and the Rise of Mathematical Structures by Leo Corry, but neither of the aforementioned are light reads.
There is QED and the Men Who Made It by Schweber.
Ernst Mach wrote philosophical works on the subject.
The Part and The Whole by Heisenberg (his autobiography) probably also counts.
I could think if I remember some autobiographies.
And generally I suggest you read the sources of strong opinionated folks who founded them. And then I strongly prefer people in the sciences (physics, really) to outsiders, and also mathematicans.
I can look into what I have, if you want to go into a particular direction.
What's neat is Halmos photobook, called I have a photographic memory. He basically has snapshot of each famous mathematican during his lifetime or so. I'll try to find it - I once saw it online.
From the above, if you're into 1940's physics kind of topics, I'd start with Heisenbergs autobiography (nice lighter read). More generally, just classical Kuhn.

On a side note, I'll probably do more on the history of formal logic (and then some) in some upcoming video on youtube Here at 11:40 I do a 10 minute rant summing up some events from 1880 to 1936
https://youtu.be/CAUo5aNmvz8?t=11m39s

>> No.9302651

>>9302568

This.

>> No.9302910

>>9302568
>>9302651
https://gonewild.co/2017/09/18/shinuki-patreon-dump/

>> No.9302940

>>9302910
these are a lot less attractive when you realize she's wearing fake tits

>> No.9303164

>>9302602
>Thomas Kuhns structure of scientific revolutions

There were no scientific revolutions and this mindset has actively hurt the progress of science.

>> No.9303189

>>9302511
http://4chan-science.wikia.com/wiki/History
Forces and Fields: The Concept of Action at a Distance in the History of Physics (Dover Books) by Mary B. Hesse
Concepts of Mass in Classical and Modern Physics (Dover Books) by Max Jammer
Concepts of Force: A Study in the Foundations of Dynamics (Dover Books on Physics) by Max Jammer
Concepts of Space: The History of Theories of Space in Physics (Dover Books) by Max Jammer
Concepts of Simultaneity: From Antiquity to Einstein and Beyond by Max Jammer
The Philosophy of Quantum Mechanics: The Interpretations of Quantum Mechanics in Historical Perspective by Max Jammer
The Conceptual Development of Quantum Mechanics by Max Jammer
The Origins of Statics: The Sources of Physical Theory by Pierre Duhem

>> No.9303542

>>9303164
What do you mean. I haven't read the book, I tried reading the article to discern what you mean but it didn't work.

>> No.9303698

>>9303542
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N44DZJW4LSw

>> No.9303749

>>9303698
I think this is also an issue of phrasing things in terms of individuals, rather than a collective entity.

>> No.9303913

>>9303164
But were there not changes in the paradigm and the perception of what science can and cannot do?

>> No.9304040

Are the works of Feyerabend, Kuhn, Popper widely accepted in the STEM community, or are they seen as relativist charlatans?

>> No.9304046

>>9304040
But Popper is a hardcore realist, not a relativist

All in all, I'd say STEM academia is split between positivists and Popperian realists.
Well, at least when it comes to people's personal opinions, because academia itself works on strictly pragmatist principles.

>> No.9304190
File: 35 KB, 680x478, em_pdc_aloha1.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
9304190

>>9303164
While I'm not sure if your stance can hold, I didn't want to defend Kuhn. I think he tells a too simple narrative, but there are surely changes in mindsets that come with switching of generations of academics. I think it's valid to speak of a Maxwell/Planck generation, or a Einstein/Bohr generation, and then Feynman/Dyson and so on. Those folks determine the mindset and accept things that have previously not been accepted, and there you have a sort of "revolution".

>>9304040
I'd argue that most scientists don't care, or are not very aware of the various philosophical streams of thought. Especially in India/China, there doesn't seem to be much discussion at all. I might be wrong about this.
Feyerabend is "too edgy" or too extreme for any larger part of the scientific community to agree with him. Popper is 100 years old by now, no? I've read some books by folks after those, but whenever I have the feel I'm dealing with theorists who don't properly had the goal to advance the scientific subjects themselves, I tend to quickly drop those books.

>>9304046
I think positivism has been watered down and we mostly just have pragmatists who don't actually care or larp for positivists once they have to answer hard questions they don't know the answer to.
ad. Ah, yes I finally read your last sentence and I agree

>> No.9304209

>>9303164
Clearly havent read any history of science you shill. and no no one in science takes these views seriously but out of ignorance.

General reply to thread. Read chalmers what is this thing called science. Very easy to read. General overview of philosophical issues and relevant history in a coherent narrative. Short book.

>> No.9305052

>>9302568
She has fake tits there though, notice the difference of the "breast" skin and her arm skin

Calm your dick.

>> No.9305263

>>9305052
That's just lighting, it's a body suit, only head is her.