History of Science

[John Blonn]

Any fans of the history of science here?

I'm a grad student in Science and Technology Studies (focusing on the history of science) and I'm curious if there is anyone here who takes an interest in this field.

I work on the history of chemistry, primarily...

[Complexity]

I am. I love to read histories of math and science.

How far are you along in your grad studies?

Any particular interests?

[Jimbo07]

I'm interested in the history of technology... a somewhat (if not exactly) related topic...

[Andronicus]

Absolutely.

I only took the basic astronomy class in college, but my Professor was a huge history of astronomy buff (wrote a book or two on it) and it was quite interesting to see how astronomy (really astrology for a lot of it) was tied into the religious beliefs of a society.

[fuelair]

I'm interested in the history of technology... a somewhat (if not exactly) related topic...As we teach it around these parts, completely related: Applied Science needs Pure Science and that need works just as much the other way!!!:)

[John Blonn]

To Complexity:

I'm in my second year of grad school. I have lots of different interests in the field, both within the history of chemistry and in other areas. Right now I'm working on a project on mid-19th century organic chemistry, specifically looking at the "structural revolution" in orgo, obviously starting from Kekule and working from there. I want to see how both pedagogy and experimental practice change once you start thinking in terms of structures, and specifically how doing chemistry on paper and pencil changes the way the science was conceptualized.

To Jimbo07:

The history of technology is definitely tied into the history of science! It was my bad for not including that in my above description. S&TS (my program's field) looks into the history, sociology, and philosophy of science, technology, and medicine, so all of that stuff is implicated in each other and can't really be separated, if you think about it. What history of technology are you interested in?

To Andronicus:

Who was the professor?

[Complexity]

Cool. How many more years (approximately) until you're done with your degree program?

You've got a lot of work in front of you, but what interesting work.

Don't forget Kekule's dream.

[John Blonn]

Cool. How many more years (approximately) until you're done with your degree program?

You've got a lot of work in front of you, but what interesting work.

Don't forget Kekule's dream.

Looking at (approximately) 3-4. So I'll be here awhile, lol (here = Cornell).

Yes indeed, I won't forget the dream :)

[Jimbo07]

To Jimbo07:

The history of technology is definitely tied into the history of science! It was my bad for not including that in my above description. S&TS (my program's field) looks into the history, sociology, and philosophy of science, technology, and medicine, so all of that stuff is implicated in each other and can't really be separated, if you think about it. What history of technology are you interested in?


My only formal education in the History of Technology is one sophomore class, the main texts for which were: Pacey, Technology in World Civilization and Homer-Dixon, The Ingenuity Gap, along with references for my term paper, etc. As well, pretty much every physics/engineering class I have taken includes a 20-second blurb on the history of the topic.

It seems to me that the history of technology is NOT the history of science. In fact, I had always assumed they were the same, but thinking about it carefully, technology developed (sometimes quite) independently of science. In fact, someone (here, I think) was saying that prior to the 19th c. it is hard to find direct links between the burgeoning sciences and developing technologies, except that both were accelerating concurrently. What are my errors here?

I'm interested in a lot of technology, so it is probably safer to say that I am "least" interested in civil engineering technologies (still interested, just least). ;)

[John Blonn]

My only formal education in the History of Technology is one sophomore class, the main texts for which were: Pacey, Technology in World Civilization and Homer-Dixon, The Ingenuity Gap, along with references for my term paper, etc. As well, pretty much every physics/engineering class I have taken includes a 20-second blurb on the history of the topic.

It seems to me that the history of technology is NOT the history of science. In fact, I had always assumed they were the same, but thinking about it carefully, technology developed (sometimes quite) independently of science. In fact, someone (here, I think) was saying that prior to the 19th c. it is hard to find direct links between the burgeoning sciences and developing technologies, except that both were accelerating concurrently. What are my errors here?

I'm interested in a lot of technology, so it is probably safer to say that I am "least" interested in civil engineering technologies (still interested, just least). ;)

You're mostly right. It's true that there's not a nice, neat 1-to-1 relationship between new technologies and scientific development. Certainly before the 19th century it would be a stretch to find "science" and "technology" insofar as you really can't identify those two separately without a certain amount of presentism. Certainly, though, into the late 19th and 20th centuries you start to get explicit connections between the two. Examples: transatlantic cable, electrical standard. But yeah, for the most part the scientific and technological traditions are autonomous.

[Mobyseven]

Any fans of the history of science here?

I'm a grad student in Science and Technology Studies (focusing on the history of science) and I'm curious if there is anyone here who takes an interest in this field.

I work on the history of chemistry, primarily...

Aboslutely! Sadly there just isn't enough time at university to take everything, but I will be taking a history and philosophy of science unit in first semester next year. Logic has to take precedence over history subjects though, as that's what I want to major in.

Are you strictly history, or philosophy of science as well? Currently reading The Logic of Scientific Discovery by Popper - fascinating stuff.

[Phaedrus74]

Check out Thomas Kuhn, his "Stucture of Scientific Revolutions" came about after has had to teach history of Astronomy and found himself thinking "This Aristotle guy must either be really stupid, or I'm missing something!" (My paraphrase... ;) )

[fuelair]

My only formal education in the History of Technology is one sophomore class, the main texts for which were: Pacey, Technology in World Civilization and Homer-Dixon, The Ingenuity Gap, along with references for my term paper, etc. As well, pretty much every physics/engineering class I have taken includes a 20-second blurb on the history of the topic.

It seems to me that the history of technology is NOT the history of science. In fact, I had always assumed they were the same, but thinking about it carefully, technology developed (sometimes quite) independently of science. In fact, someone (here, I think) was saying that prior to the 19th c. it is hard to find direct links between the burgeoning sciences and developing technologies, except that both were accelerating concurrently. What are my errors here?

I'm interested in a lot of technology, so it is probably safer to say that I am "least" interested in civil engineering technologies (still interested, just least). ;)
True that the histories are not synonomous - the key is that for many of it's advances science has needed a boost from technology (telescope, microscope, CRT, X-ray machine, electron microscope, gene-sequencing machines, centrifuges etc. are applied scientific concepts turned to useful devices which lead to further applied science discoveries, etc.