The Enlightenment: The Pursuit of Happiness, 1680-1790

The Enlightenment: The Pursuit of Happiness, 1680-1790 by Ritchie Robertson

This is an extremely long book that attempts to explore the entire enlightenment. However, it reads more like a book review. It goes through fields and countries to explore various works of the era and how they tie together in various themes. The time period does get a bit fluid, with Jane Austen books appearing also. In addition to books, there are other works such as plays or compositions by Mozart. The elites of the time were thinking outside the box. Rather than focus on the given knowledge and explanations, they worked to discover and obtain truths of their own. The scientific method started to make its way in society. There was striving for more equality. However, that definition was in flux. Slavery was on the rise. The French Revolution started with bold goals, but then fell apart as those that did not adhere were executed. The Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire is emblematic of the thought. Is society on a path towards improvement or just oscillating? The book goes on for much to long to try to get to its answers.

Curiosity: How Science Became Interested in Everything

Curiosity: How Science Became Interested in Everything by Philip Ball

Curiosity has been a driving force of science. There needs to be a degree of inquisitiveness before one seeks our to understand. This book looks at how curiosity led to a repulsion of the "facts" of Aristotle to the new proto-scientific method, primarily during the enlightenment. Characters such as Hooke and Newton play key roles along with the "gentlemen" members of the Royal Society. They eventually became such a part of popular culture that their eccentricities were mocked in plays of the day. This led to a decrease in their position of the day and an ebb in science. But the ground was already set for a continued progress in science.

The book is filled with interesting stories and tries to tie everything together into a distinct narrative. However, it is too dense. There are so many details that the overall narrative gets lost. It just calls out for a quick skimming with a focus on interesting parts. It does reference many works of the day. I took note of many of the proto-science fiction works from the 1600s. These did seem like they would be interesting to read. The plays starizing the royal society also seemed like good items to put on the reading list. 

The author attempts to provide a balanced approach that puts the key players in their day. Magic and science were intertwined in the minds of early scientists. Some of the early scientific treatises would have magical formulae together with "scientific" treatments..  Isaac Newton believed in alchemy. It was a common practice of the day. His scientific insights did not lead him to shum it. Galileo got in trouble not so much for astronomical insights, but for trying to interpret the bible to justify his observations. Science was and continues to be a social construct. It has never been fully objective. Scientists rarely go about collecting data while keeping their hypothesis at arm's length. The data collection is influence by the hypothesis. Accepted science may change. Other factors may cause science to be rejected. Curiosity and willingness to change remains important in science.

The Beginning of Infinity: Explanations That Transform the World

David Deutsch is a physicist by training. In The Beginning of Infinity, he weaves in physics with the theory of science, philosophy and the future. He has an optimistic view of society. He gives little credit to stories that "the world is doomed." While in school, a professor told everyone that global cooling would lead to an imminent food shortage. That didn't happen. Today we are concerned with global warming. Sometimes people are obsessively concerned with whether the warming is caused by humans or naturally occurring. However, if there are negative consequences to warming, the cause is irrelevant. The scientific method can be used to help find solutions. Political "fixes" will often set things back, in part by forcing effort in the wrong area.

He also gives the example of somebody who thought color televisions were a needless luxury. There was little that color TVs could do that could not be done with black and white screens. Color TVs also depended on rare elements of limited supply, thus would only be available to a limited set of wealthy people. Today, color screens are everywhere. The dependency on rare elements, however, is gone, with CRTs pretty much nonexistent these days. New technology made the previous problems irrelevant. The new technology was built upon the previous technology.

The enlightenment enabled humankind to master the world. The problems we solve today were likely not thought of previously. Scientific explanations can be used to explain everything. They are constantly subject to re-evaluation. He feels that science should seek to explain things based on observations and theories that can be disproved. Supernatural or religious explanations cannot be easily disproved and are not "scientific". (It could be argued that that science and religion live on different planes. They are trying to do very different things. There is little need for them to try to compete with each other.)

The book goes into long discussions about Infinity and the "Infinity Hotel". Greek Philosophers also get significant coverage. Quantum theory, the theory of relativity and Newtonian physics are all covered with their inherent conflicts. There are many different theories of the universe today. Static societies think they have all they need today. These societies eventually die when faced with an external shock they cannot deal with. The Enlightenment helped enable dynamic societies. They use the existing knowledge. However, they also seek to gain new knowledge, possibly throwing out beloved theories in the process. There is no single source of authority other than the truth. (The author has some negative things to say about "post-modernism" which seems to say everything is relative, but only is acceptable if approved by certain "authority figures") 

America's cultures seems at odds with the "enlightenment views" advocated. The left tends to favor "science", but also is subject to adopting certain "beloved beliefs" regardless of new knowledge. The right tends to be more conservatively static, however, it also encourages more freedom of action. A good future for science needs a bit of both.