The History Book Club discussion

For those of you who would like to get ahead; starting on July 6th, we will be covering pages 191 through 235 for the week ending July 12th.

The assignment in more detail is as follows:

July 6 – July 12 ~~ Part I, The Invisible College (191-235) (Completing Part I)

We do have a syllabus for the entire book on a separate thread for those who would like to read ahead.


Bentley

All,

I will be opening up this section early for discussion because many times I will be in transit over the holiday vacation period and may not have easy access to my computer. But I will respond to every post when I have wireless internet access.

I want to make sure you have a place to post. (Please note that I might not be able to be on that much during this time period; but will check in and post "as much as one can" over vacation); will be back by July 12th in earnest. Vacation is July 2 - July 12th.

At any time, please feel free to post your own questions and comments.

Bentley

At the beginning of "The Invisible College", Barzun claims that when we speak of 17C science and scientists we are committing an anachronism. He speaks of the word itself not having been narrowed down; and that the word scientist dates only from 1840.

He then points to Whitehead and states that "Not until the systems were revised and simplified, while made to accomodate newly observed facts, did the "march of science" as a concentrated effort begin all over Europe."

Barzun goes on to state that it is "misleading to see in the 17C a scientific revolution, not because it is best to keep the word revolution for vast changes in power and property, but because the new conception of the cosmos was rather an evolution, with stumbles and backtrackings along the way. "

I felt that I was not buying his former arguments and then he hits us with the statement" "That Galileo, Keplar, Bacon, Jung, Pascal and Descartes - all men of the 17C--are better known than their elders in science is the kind of wrong that happens repeatedly in all fields of culture." Barzun obviously feels that the pioneers who went through the first struggles should be the ones more recognized.

I guess I have to say what is the point here of making such a statement. Should we diminish the men of the 17 C and just say that we have not given our due to the folks who preceeded you so all of you should not be so well known for your accomplishments either?

Sometimes I do not understand Barzun's sense of right and wrong.

Page 191

On page 192, Barzun states: " The road to the present was hard and long because the old systems were good."

It seems Barzun felt that the systems had consistency and completeness and only a few points threatened their validity. I guess he is probably reverting back to his theory about the predecessors of the 17 C scientists as being the foundation of what was to come.

I did feel that he was not giving Copernicus, Keplar and the others their due. Why is Barzun so bent on what came before the 17C?

He almost seems to be implying that what the 17C folks came up with was insignificant to the findings before them. I can understand the author giving folks their due and presenting the proper perspective on all of these great men; but he does seem to be giving the men of the earlier centuries more credit and more of a favored historic interpretation and evaluation.

Did anybody else have that opinion? Does Barzun revere the old and despise and undervalue the new? Is that one of the reasons that he feels that our culture is facing decadence?

Page 192 - 193

On page 192, Barzun seems to be having a strange argument with himself and possibly his own God (I wasn't sure what Barzun's interpretation of God was or is).

The following quote was an interesting one. Is this Barzun's or someone else's?

"Science has cut Man down to size and broken his pride: Copernicus removed him from the center of the universe; Darwin reduced him to the status of animal; and Freud dethroned his intellect and put instinct in its place."

Gee, what does man have left? And then Barzun betrays his sense of God and religion (I believe) when he states: "True, the Humanists felt the dignity of the human being, because his powers were achieving wonders, but it was not because of his cosmic location. He was still under God, no matter what Ptolemy or Kopernik might say."

I think the above belies Barzun's view of God and the universe!

And of course, he cannot fail to paint Montaigne in a favorable light when he states: "Montaigne himself found no cause for men to be proud."

Barzun then equates Scientism with man believing that he is the center of the universe centuries later. I am wondering what Barzun thinks of modern day society and modern man and whether he approves. I guess we will have to read on.

Page 193

What did everyone think of Barzun's interpretation of observation?

First, he goes back to the Middle Ages and states that the Middle Ages did not "neglect observation"; lest we forget that the 17C scientists owe much to those who came before (smile).

He then says something that I believe in terms of the first phrase of the sentence is quite true: "But observation is rarely neutral; it rests on pre-conceptions and pre-perceptions; and it was these that had to change."

I am not quite sure of the distinction that he is making between pre-conceptions and pre-perceptions. And how do these have to change? Any thoughts anyone?

I can see that he believes that a better way to observe is to overlook visible details and viewing objects in geometrical fashion. It possibly sounds good for a Picasso but I am not sure how I would do this in real life. I realize that the details do not give me the impression that the whole of anything does for example when examining a beautiful flower or the ocean for example; I would not simply see or examine the stem or a grain of sand or just a wave cresting. I would look at these things in their entirety (of course).

But if we are looking at scientific analysis, I do not think that not examining the parts leads to very good analysis or observation.

I do see how his arguments are leading to his discussion of mathematics and geometry on page 194; but I am still having issues investing in all of his intermediary arguments as solid facts.

Pages 193 - 194

I was not that familiar with Giordano Bruno (although I had heard of him). I thought it was interesting though after studying the founding fathers (America's) - many of whom were Deists; that Barzun considered Bruno to be a great forerunner in the 18C of Deism and in the 19C of the German Naturphilosphie and in the early 20C of Vitalism (another ism!)

I thought Barzun's statement that the debate between Bruno and his 16 C peers was thus the first of the conflicts between physicists and biologists, most of whom may be found in one or the other of the two camps - Materialists and Vitalists" to be interesting and worthy of some discussion.

His summation at the end of the next paragraph was very curious: " To sum up, any anthropomorphic" - manlike - view of things is wrong in principle and will mislead. Especially wrong is the belief that anything in nature fulfills a purpose." What is he saying about the study of anthropology or sociology? Or is he simply saying that we should not attribute human qualities to cars, products, machines? What about Darwin's theories or even robots or how we view our family pets (smile)? What about what man is doing with video games and I guess that Barzun would not agree with this in principle. Aren't their folks who believe that nature is its own purpose?

Barzun is very interesting for sure.

Page 195

Laljit wrote: "Bentley wrote: "At the beginning of "The Invisible College", Barzun claims that when we speak of 17C science and scientists we are committing an anachronism. He speaks of the word itself not havin..."

Yes, the chapter did go around and around with games in semantics.

You stated: "He decides that a revolution only occurs with regard to shifts in power; however, how is the shift in thinking about the world and our place in it, not a revolution?"

I cannot agree with you more. I think the word revolution has taken on an entirely different meaning than Barzun is frankly used to. I think sometimes that Barzun is brilliant; but very set in his ways and with his knowledge he has developed a narrow view of his own personal and fixed definitions; at least I sense we see where he is coming from; even though we may not agree with his assessments and/or definitions.

Yes, I also agree with the term "pioneer" as being a moment of his own self reflection. I seem to find these digressions interesting in some ways; because it gives me more of an understanding of the author and where he is coming from. I think he is worried about his legacy; I hardly think he should be; but he may be considering his own mortality right now and what the future holds; he certainly knows his long past and should be very happy with that; but maybe there are things that he regrets.

Laljit, I think you summed things up perfectly when you reflected: "Certainly, science does not progress with Eureka moments and it builds upon what is already known, but there are those who consolidate what has come before, and more importantly, express that knowledge in ways that connect to the greater world and not just to other scientists. That is why they are remembered, and why those in other fields of culture are remembered. Not because they did not build on others, but because they opened the world.

Yes, I think what you stated is pitch perfect. I have no idea why a brilliant mind like Barzun's does not see it this way either. For some reason, I think this chapter in many ways deals with Barzun and his thinking about himself; that maybe he does not consider that he has been given his due.

Bentley

Laljit, once again I have been out of pocket and still on vacation; but will catch up on my responses; will of course be back after the 12th at my home base.

But everyone should feel free to post and initiate discussion on their own as well; I just try to instigate/stimulate/move things along; but the discussions are open to all members to initiate.

Laljit, your posts have been quite discerning regarding Barzun's thinking and motivations.

Bentley

Laljit wrote: "With regard to pre-conceptions and pre-perceptions, and even the discussion of anthropomorphizing, I believe Barzun is arguing that science dupes itself into believing it is purely rational, and he..."

Laljit wrote: "Bentley wrote: "On page 192, Barzun seems to be having a strange argument with himself and possibly his own God (I wasn't sure what Barzun's interpretation of God was or is).

The following quote..."

I am surprised that Barzun did not source this quote; if it was not his own. It was inserted strangely and I wondered whether this was something he wrote or inserted from elsewhere.

Barzun seems to me to have problems with the the terms science and scientist to begin with. I am torn between his implied view that it is somewhat a religious perspective versus what you so aptly pointed out that he may be considering it just another cultural phenomenum.

I agree about Barzun's limited regard for technology; I think he is a technophobe (that is just my take). I think he probably is an old guy who just does not appreciate all that technology offers. Many folks of his age group feel the same way. Technology has passed them by; they simply missed what value it has and will most likely never appreciate it. I think this also goes back to what Barzun holds dear; he is a theoretical kind of historian too (a cultural historian) so he is comfortable with theories which may be debated versus hard facts that cannot be disputed. Does technology in his viewpoint make science possible? I do not fathom his thinking here.

Laljit wrote: "With regard to pre-conceptions and pre-perceptions, and even the discussion of anthropomorphizing, I believe Barzun is arguing that science dupes itself into believing it is purely rational, and he..."

So our view of science is filtered through our own cultural perspectives, agreed; but that science is scientism (I emphatically disagree); I also feel that science in some areas has made great advances and there are some things that are considered factual (for example the earth is round, we circle the sun, we know that the moon exists and have landed on the moon, we know a lot about earthquakes, tornadoes, global warming, etc.) Some things we know to be true; and I hardly consider that the earth is round to be true only because of our cultural perspectives. I think you would agree with all of the above too. Some things we now know to be true, some things we still are gathering information about, and of course there is always that third category where we just simply have no idea. But are scientific advances, medical cures just scientism. I am thinking of many examples where his theories in this chapter do not fly. I guess all scientists have their own proclivities and biases and their perspectives are at odds with each other; so I can see that part of his argument to be at least partially true.

Possibly science is one of those pet peeves that Barzun has debated for years and could not fail to revisit these old arguments in this chapter.