Ch 15

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!