Uncle Sunstone's Brief and Saucy Primer to the Scientific Revolution

[Sunstone]

Uncle Sunstone's Brief and Saucy Primer to the Scientific Revolution​

(Caution! The views expressed in this OP are my own, and do not in some instances align with the consensus of scholarly opinion on these subjects. On the other hand, it would be simply absurd to consider me wrong about anything.)​

If you're like me, your first question about this thread will almost certainly be, "How did Uncle Sunstone's briefs ever come to prime the Scientific Revolution?" I myself would say that's a pretty good question!

On the other hand, if you're NOT like me, but you instead suffer from a dangerous infestation of sanity, you probably already know that the Scientific Revolution is arguably the single most consequential event in the entire intellectual and material history of our noble and esteemed species of poo-flinging, fur-challenged super-apes. Moreover, that knowledge may have gotten you to wondering how such an extraordinary thing ever got started?

As it turns out, that's a huge question. Huge!

I mean, HUGE! Even bigger than my ego huge! And there is no one right way to briefly answer it. Rather, there are several ways you could answer that question, depending on how much you want to gloss over.

(Fair Warning: We're going to be very glossy here!)

For instance, you could start by pointing out that an ancient Greek aristocrat, Thales, living approximately 2,600 years ago in Asia Minor, can be thought of as beginning the Scientific Revolution when he invents the notion that all natural events have natural causes that can be discovered by the use of reason.

After that, for the next 1,400 years or so, the overriding principle of "science" -- as the ancients understand science -- is logical reasoning. There are, of course, numerous exceptions and qualifications to that statement (e.g. Archimedes, for one), but for quite some time, science is like a bird with only one wing: reason. It's now and then making some impressive, flutter-assisted hops, but overall it's miserably failing to soar aloft -- at least, by our own contemporary standards for soaring.

Then about 800 AD the Arabs get hold of the ancient (mainly) Greek learning and combine its overriding emphasis on reason with the Medieval Arabic genius for experiment, quantification, and empiricism. Now science has two wings: Logical reasoning and empirical evidence. It is now poised to take off; it is poised to fly; and yet it is at this point, only on the verge of leaving the nest.

Now comes the Renaissance. Science has its two essential methodological wings -- logical reasoning and empirical evidence -- but it as yet lacks a will, spirit, or motive, so to speak. Where will it go? Will if fly? Will it soar? Or will it stay safely in its nest?

Fortunately, the Renaissance places an emphasis on digging up ancient things, ancient art, ancient wisdom, ancient old farts like Uncle Sunstone, etc, and this search for antiquity turns up a peculiar bundle of manuscripts -- manuscripts purported to be written by -- or written by the close associates of -- a sage, priest, and prophet named Hermes Trismegistos. These Hermetic writings offer a new and different account of creation, one in which God makes humanity more fully in his own image: Not just a rational animal, but also like God, a creator:

Humans could imitate God by creating. To do so, they must learn nature’s secrets, and this could be done only by forcing nature to yield them through the tortures of fire, distillation, and other alchemical manipulations. The reward for success would be eternal life and youth, as well as freedom from want and disease. It was a heady vision, and it gave rise to the notion that, through science and technology, humankind could bend nature to its wishes. This is essentially the modern view of science, and it should be emphasized that it occurs only in Western civilization. It is probably this attitude that permitted the West to surpass the East, after centuries of inferiority, in the exploitation of the physical world. [Emphasis mine]​

So now science has two methodological wings to lift it, along with the will or spirit to soar, but something is still missing. What’s missing, you might ask? The body of the bird, of course! D'uh!

That body in my impressive and esteemed opinion takes shape over 120 or so years between 1543 when Copernicus publishes his great life’s work, Six Books Concerning the Revolutions of the Heavenly Orbs, and the 1660s, when the Royal Society of London for the Promotion of Carnal Natural Knowledge, and the Académie des Sciences of Paris, are founded. In the grand scheme, those years are when the “body of the bird” – i.e. the notion of reliable intersubjective verification – becomes firmly established as the logical core of the sciences.

Reliable intersubjective verification is a fancy-pants term for the reliable verification of something by two or more people. For instance, let’s say you observe (i.e. verify) that combining hydrogen and oxygen results in water. That’s subjective verification – subjective because you, a “subject”, have verified it. Now suppose I also observe the same thing. That is intersubjective verification because now not one, but two people, or “subjects”, have verified it. And if we then find that we can – not only once, not only twice, but always and perhaps even in different ways -- verify that combining hydrogen and oxygen results in water then we’ve reliably verified it! What fun! What joy to reliably verify something! I'm thrilled now! Simply thrilled!

Are you thrilled?

At any rate, the logical foundation of all the sciences can ultimately be traced back to the principle of reliable intersubjective verification. That is, to say that something is “a scientific fact” or is “scientific knowledge” is to say that it can be reliably intersubjectively verified – at least in principle.

By the way, the concept of reliable intersubjective verification in my opinion is all but logically implied by the concept of epistemic equality, which I believe is a concept that in the West is derived from at least two sources: alcohol and marijuana Stoicism and Christianity.

Naturally, I have left out way more than I’ve included in this all too brief primer to the Scientific Revolution. Volumes have been written on this topic by far and away more knowledgeable people than me. I myself aim only to get a good discussion going.

Comments? Observations? Muddled rants? Exaggerated claims of sexual prowess?



Special thanks to @Polymath257 who inspired this thread, even though it doesn't show it.

 

[Enoch07]

I'm waiting for Uncle Sunstones drunk history briefs!

 

[beenherebeforeagain]

Entertaining as always, @Sunstone ! Reminds me "The History of" montages that Mason Williams created for the Smothers Brothers Comedy Hour...

 

[Augustus]

By the way, the concept of reliable intersubjective verification in my opinion is all but logically implied by the concept of epistemic equality, which I believe is is a concept that in the West is derived from at least two sources: alcohol and marijuana Stoicism and Christianity.

I've read some interesting ideas about the contributions of The Fall of Man to European scientific thought. This pushed scientists towards experiment based empiricism due to a decline in faith towards the reliability of reason:

the Augustinian view.. took a much more pessimistic view of our abilities after we all became inheritors of original sin. The Augustinian view was vigorously revived by the leading reformers, Martin Luther and John Calvin, and embraced by the counter-reforming Catholics, the Jansenists, thereby introducing another important theological element into the mixture of science and religion in the early modern period. The response to this revived Augustinianism, of course, was to reject the Thomist approach which essentially favoured the use of reason, and to develop an empiricist approach, which was in itself rendered even less prone to dogmatic conclusions by scepticism about our ability correctly to interpret observations and other empirical results. 39

The emphasis, accordingly, was on painstaking work to slowly gather knowledge, either by observations or by the careful performance of many experiments , but this was accompanied not by assurances that certainty could be reached in this way, but by diffidence as to whether certain knowledge could ever be achieved.

Harrison’s thesis is undeniably powerful, not only because it is backed by an impressive array of evidence from writers of the period, who all show a clear concern with the state of man after the Fall and its implications for what we can know, but also because it dovetails very neatly with many other aspects of current historiography. It stands alongside the work of Richard H. Popkin and others, for example, on the growth of scepticism from the Renaissance through the early modern period.

Religion and the Scientific Revolution - John Henry

 

[Sunstone]

I've read some interesting ideas about the contributions of The Fall of Man to European scientific thought. This pushed scientists towards experiment based empiricism due to a decline in faith towards the reliability of reason:

the Augustinian view.. took a much more pessimistic view of our abilities after we all became inheritors of original sin. The Augustinian view was vigorously revived by the leading reformers, Martin Luther and John Calvin, and embraced by the counter-reforming Catholics, the Jansenists, thereby introducing another important theological element into the mixture of science and religion in the early modern period. The response to this revived Augustinianism, of course, was to reject the Thomist approach which essentially favoured the use of reason, and to develop an empiricist approach, which was in itself rendered even less prone to dogmatic conclusions by scepticism about our ability correctly to interpret observations and other empirical results. 39

The emphasis, accordingly, was on painstaking work to slowly gather knowledge, either by observations or by the careful performance of many experiments , but this was accompanied not by assurances that certainty could be reached in this way, but by diffidence as to whether certain knowledge could ever be achieved.

Harrison’s thesis is undeniably powerful, not only because it is backed by an impressive array of evidence from writers of the period, who all show a clear concern with the state of man after the Fall and its implications for what we can know, but also because it dovetails very neatly with many other aspects of current historiography. It stands alongside the work of Richard H. Popkin and others, for example, on the growth of scepticism from the Renaissance through the early modern period.

Religion and the Scientific Revolution - John Henry

That's fascinating! Thanks for quoting that, Augustus!

In the end, I think there were a number of significant factors in the formation and rise of the sciences. I'm guessing you pretty much agree with me that it was a rather complex thing.

Having said that, I confess that I'm a wee bit dismayed at how many people so often seem to be looking for one or two easily and clearly identified causes to it, rather than accepting complexity. But just how many large and consequential historical events have but one or two causes? I'm not sure I know of any events at all that would fit that description.

 

[Sunstone]

Entertaining as always, @Sunstone ! Reminds me "The History of" montages that Mason Williams created for the Smothers Brothers Comedy Hour...

Thank you for your kind words!

I liked the 227th image the best, personally speaking, although I can certainly see how some folks would argue the painting in the 149th image was more significant in the history of art.

 

[corynski]

In the scientific method it's called:

cor·rob·o·ra·tion
kəˌräbəˈrāSH(ə)n/
noun

1. evidence that confirms or supports a statement, theory, or finding; confirmation.
   "there is no independent corroboration for this"

 

[sayak83]

Uncle Sunstone's Brief and Saucy Primer to the Scientific Revolution​

(Caution! The views expressed in this OP are my own, and do not in some instances align with the consensus of scholarly opinion on these subjects. On the other hand, it would be simply absurd to consider me wrong about anything.)​

If you're like me, your first question about this thread will almost certainly be, "How did Uncle Sunstone's briefs ever come to prime the Scientific Revolution?" I myself would say that's a pretty good question!

On the other hand, if you're NOT like me, but you instead suffer from a dangerous infestation of sanity, you probably already know that the Scientific Revolution is arguably the single most consequential event in the entire intellectual and material history of our noble and esteemed species of poo-flinging, fur-challenged super-apes. Moreover, that knowledge may have gotten you to wondering how such an extraordinary thing ever got started?

As it turns out, that's a huge question. Huge!

I mean, HUGE! Even bigger than my ego huge! And there is no one right way to briefly answer it. Rather, there are several ways you could answer that question, depending on how much you want to gloss over.

(Fair Warning: We're going to be very glossy here!)

For instance, you could start by pointing out that an ancient Greek aristocrat, Thales, living approximately 2,600 years ago in Asia Minor, can be thought of as beginning the Scientific Revolution when he invents the notion that all natural events have natural causes that can be discovered by the use of reason.

After that, for the next 1,400 years or so, the overriding principle of "science" -- as the ancients understand science -- is logical reasoning. There are, of course, numerous exceptions and qualifications to that statement (e.g. Archimedes, for one), but for quite some time, science is like a bird with only one wing: reason. It's now and then making some impressive, flutter-assisted hops, but overall it's miserably failing to soar aloft -- at least, by our own contemporary standards for soaring.

Then about 800 AD the Arabs get hold of the ancient (mainly) Greek learning and combine its overriding emphasis on reason with the Medieval Arabic genius for experiment, quantification, and empiricism. Now science has two wings: Logical reasoning and empirical evidence. It is now poised to take off; it is poised to fly; and yet it is at this point, only on the verge of leaving the nest.

Now comes the Renaissance. Science has its two essential methodological wings -- logical reasoning and empirical evidence -- but it as yet lacks a will, spirit, or motive, so to speak. Where will it go? Will if fly? Will it soar? Or will it stay safely in its nest?

Fortunately, the Renaissance places an emphasis on digging up ancient things, ancient art, ancient wisdom, ancient old farts like Uncle Sunstone, etc, and this search for antiquity turns up a peculiar bundle of manuscripts -- manuscripts purported to be written by -- or written by the close associates of -- a sage, priest, and prophet named Hermes Trismegistos. These Hermetic writings offer a new and different account of creation, one in which God makes humanity more fully in his own image: Not just a rational animal, but also like God, a creator:

Humans could imitate God by creating. To do so, they must learn nature’s secrets, and this could be done only by forcing nature to yield them through the tortures of fire, distillation, and other alchemical manipulations. The reward for success would be eternal life and youth, as well as freedom from want and disease. It was a heady vision, and it gave rise to the notion that, through science and technology, humankind could bend nature to its wishes. This is essentially the modern view of science, and it should be emphasized that it occurs only in Western civilization. It is probably this attitude that permitted the West to surpass the East, after centuries of inferiority, in the exploitation of the physical world. [Emphasis mine]​

So now science has two methodological wings to lift it, along with the will or spirit to soar, but something is still missing. What’s missing, you might ask? The body of the bird, of course! D'uh!

That body in my impressive and esteemed opinion takes shape over 120 or so years between 1543 when Copernicus publishes his great life’s work, Six Books Concerning the Revolutions of the Heavenly Orbs, and the 1660s, when the Royal Society of London for the Promotion of Carnal Natural Knowledge, and the Académie des Sciences of Paris, are founded. In the grand scheme, those years are when the “body of the bird” – i.e. the notion of reliable intersubjective verification – becomes firmly established as the logical core of the sciences.

Reliable intersubjective verification is a fancy-pants term for the reliable verification of something by two or more people. For instance, let’s say you observe (i.e. verify) that combining hydrogen and oxygen results in water. That’s subjective verification – subjective because you, a “subject”, have verified it. Now suppose I also observe the same thing. That is intersubjective verification because now not one, but two people, or “subjects”, have verified it. And if we then find that we can – not only once, not only twice, but always and perhaps even in different ways -- verify that combining hydrogen and oxygen results in water then we’ve reliably verified it! What fun! What joy to reliably verify something! I'm thrilled now! Simply thrilled!

Are you thrilled?

At any rate, the logical foundation of all the sciences can ultimately be traced back to the principle of reliable intersubjective verification. That is, to say that something is “a scientific fact” or is “scientific knowledge” is to say that it can be reliably intersubjectively verified – at least in principle.

By the way, the concept of reliable intersubjective verification in my opinion is all but logically implied by the concept of epistemic equality, which I believe is a concept that in the West is derived from at least two sources: alcohol and marijuana Stoicism and Christianity.

Naturally, I have left out way more than I’ve included in this all too brief primer to the Scientific Revolution. Volumes have been written on this topic by far and away more knowledgeable people than me. I myself aim only to get a good discussion going.

Comments? Observations? Muddled rants? Exaggerated claims of sexual prowess?



Special thanks to @Polymath257 who inspired this thread, even though it doesn't show it.

Don't you think that the discovery of an couple on new continents and the truck loads of silver and other resources that came with it has something to do with people being enthusiastic about and having the money to fund scientific endeavors?

 

[sandy whitelinger]

Uncle Sunstone's Brief and Saucy Primer to the Scientific Revolution​

(Caution! The views expressed in this OP are my own, and do not in some instances align with the consensus of scholarly opinion on these subjects. On the other hand, it would be simply absurd to consider me wrong about anything.)​

If you're like me, your first question about this thread will almost certainly be, "How did Uncle Sunstone's briefs ever come to prime the Scientific Revolution?" I myself would say that's a pretty good question!

On the other hand, if you're NOT like me, but you instead suffer from a dangerous infestation of sanity, you probably already know that the Scientific Revolution is arguably the single most consequential event in the entire intellectual and material history of our noble and esteemed species of poo-flinging, fur-challenged super-apes. Moreover, that knowledge may have gotten you to wondering how such an extraordinary thing ever got started?

As it turns out, that's a huge question. Huge!

I mean, HUGE! Even bigger than my ego huge! And there is no one right way to briefly answer it. Rather, there are several ways you could answer that question, depending on how much you want to gloss over.

(Fair Warning: We're going to be very glossy here!)

For instance, you could start by pointing out that an ancient Greek aristocrat, Thales, living approximately 2,600 years ago in Asia Minor, can be thought of as beginning the Scientific Revolution when he invents the notion that all natural events have natural causes that can be discovered by the use of reason.

After that, for the next 1,400 years or so, the overriding principle of "science" -- as the ancients understand science -- is logical reasoning. There are, of course, numerous exceptions and qualifications to that statement (e.g. Archimedes, for one), but for quite some time, science is like a bird with only one wing: reason. It's now and then making some impressive, flutter-assisted hops, but overall it's miserably failing to soar aloft -- at least, by our own contemporary standards for soaring.

Then about 800 AD the Arabs get hold of the ancient (mainly) Greek learning and combine its overriding emphasis on reason with the Medieval Arabic genius for experiment, quantification, and empiricism. Now science has two wings: Logical reasoning and empirical evidence. It is now poised to take off; it is poised to fly; and yet it is at this point, only on the verge of leaving the nest.

Now comes the Renaissance. Science has its two essential methodological wings -- logical reasoning and empirical evidence -- but it as yet lacks a will, spirit, or motive, so to speak. Where will it go? Will if fly? Will it soar? Or will it stay safely in its nest?

Fortunately, the Renaissance places an emphasis on digging up ancient things, ancient art, ancient wisdom, ancient old farts like Uncle Sunstone, etc, and this search for antiquity turns up a peculiar bundle of manuscripts -- manuscripts purported to be written by -- or written by the close associates of -- a sage, priest, and prophet named Hermes Trismegistos. These Hermetic writings offer a new and different account of creation, one in which God makes humanity more fully in his own image: Not just a rational animal, but also like God, a creator:

Humans could imitate God by creating. To do so, they must learn nature’s secrets, and this could be done only by forcing nature to yield them through the tortures of fire, distillation, and other alchemical manipulations. The reward for success would be eternal life and youth, as well as freedom from want and disease. It was a heady vision, and it gave rise to the notion that, through science and technology, humankind could bend nature to its wishes. This is essentially the modern view of science, and it should be emphasized that it occurs only in Western civilization. It is probably this attitude that permitted the West to surpass the East, after centuries of inferiority, in the exploitation of the physical world. [Emphasis mine]​

So now science has two methodological wings to lift it, along with the will or spirit to soar, but something is still missing. What’s missing, you might ask? The body of the bird, of course! D'uh!

That body in my impressive and esteemed opinion takes shape over 120 or so years between 1543 when Copernicus publishes his great life’s work, Six Books Concerning the Revolutions of the Heavenly Orbs, and the 1660s, when the Royal Society of London for the Promotion of Carnal Natural Knowledge, and the Académie des Sciences of Paris, are founded. In the grand scheme, those years are when the “body of the bird” – i.e. the notion of reliable intersubjective verification – becomes firmly established as the logical core of the sciences.

Reliable intersubjective verification is a fancy-pants term for the reliable verification of something by two or more people. For instance, let’s say you observe (i.e. verify) that combining hydrogen and oxygen results in water. That’s subjective verification – subjective because you, a “subject”, have verified it. Now suppose I also observe the same thing. That is intersubjective verification because now not one, but two people, or “subjects”, have verified it. And if we then find that we can – not only once, not only twice, but always and perhaps even in different ways -- verify that combining hydrogen and oxygen results in water then we’ve reliably verified it! What fun! What joy to reliably verify something! I'm thrilled now! Simply thrilled!

Are you thrilled?

At any rate, the logical foundation of all the sciences can ultimately be traced back to the principle of reliable intersubjective verification. That is, to say that something is “a scientific fact” or is “scientific knowledge” is to say that it can be reliably intersubjectively verified – at least in principle.

By the way, the concept of reliable intersubjective verification in my opinion is all but logically implied by the concept of epistemic equality, which I believe is a concept that in the West is derived from at least two sources: alcohol and marijuana Stoicism and Christianity.

Naturally, I have left out way more than I’ve included in this all too brief primer to the Scientific Revolution. Volumes have been written on this topic by far and away more knowledgeable people than me. I myself aim only to get a good discussion going.

Comments? Observations? Muddled rants? Exaggerated claims of sexual prowess?



Special thanks to @Polymath257 who inspired this thread, even though it doesn't show it.

When you're done, pass some of that over here, would ya?

 

[joe1776]

....
At any rate, the logical foundation of all the sciences can ultimately be traced back to the principle of reliable intersubjective verification. That is, to say that something is “a scientific fact” or is “scientific knowledge” is to say that it can be reliably intersubjectively verified – at least in principle...

Okay, but I think you could also say: The scientific method was born when we humans first realized that biases could throw our reasoned conclusions off course and we needed to solve the problem.

 

[Augustus]

Having said that, I confess that I'm a wee bit dismayed at how many people so often seem to be looking for one or two easily and clearly identified causes to it, rather than accepting complexity. But just how many large and consequential historical events have but one or two causes? I'm not sure I know of any events at all that would fit that description.

I suppose there is a link to the common teleology where us fancy apes were predestined to become modern Scientific Rationalists as if by Divine Providence. If it was 'always going to happen' then it downplays the importance of cultural and social characteristics in the places things did develop.

The idea that something which happened once in 150,000 years of human history had easily explainable causes is a bit strange to me. If all it took were one or two things then it shouldn't have taken so long to appear.

Also, the idea that many of the necessary precursors (whatever they were) were pretty straightforward, intuitive things is just hindsight bias. Were they so intuitive and natural, they would have been far more common.

Ideas that we take for granted these days like that knowledge has value outside if its practical uses, and a concept of equality really require powerful justifications that are anything but intuitive. These are but 2 of countless influences from across time and space.

 

[Sunstone]

Don't you think that the discovery of an couple on new continents and the truck loads of silver and other resources that came with it has something to do with people being enthusiastic about and having the money to fund scientific endeavors?

Good point! There were many factors at work, weren't there?

 

[Sunstone]

Okay, but I think you could also say: The scientific method was born when we humans first realized that biases could throw our reasoned conclusions off course and we needed to solve the problem.

The subject is such a huge one that there are a large number of legitimate ways of summarizing it, don't you think?

By the way, one hypothesis -- which is actually a much stronger hypothesis than it might seem to be at first blush -- is the notion that humans evolved the critical thinking skills that much later on proved necessary for scientific inquiry when they learned to track animals for food.

 

[Sunstone]

I suppose there is a link to the common teleology where us fancy apes were predestined to become modern Scientific Rationalists as if by Divine Providence. If it was 'always going to happen' then it downplays the importance of cultural and social characteristics in the places things did develop.

The idea that something which happened once in 150,000 years of human history had easily explainable causes is a bit strange to me. If all it took were one or two things then it shouldn't have taken so long to appear.

Also, the idea that many of the necessary precursors (whatever they were) were pretty straightforward, intuitive things is just hindsight bias. Were they so intuitive and natural, they would have been far more common.

Ideas that we take for granted these days like that knowledge has value outside if its practical uses, and a concept of equality really require powerful justifications that are anything but intuitive. These are but 2 of countless influences from across time and space.

Excellent points! By the way, it's my understanding that nowadays the oldest Homo sapiens fossils are from a relatively new site in Ethiopia that dates back 195,000 years. Which, if true, would make your point about something happening just once in human history even more persuasive.

I think that, if the study of the history of science tells us anything, it should tell us how even simple ideas that now appear obvious to us were by no means simple or easy to come up with the first time around.

I'm reminded of Huxley's thought, a few moments after he'd finished Origin of Species. He reports thinking, "Of course! How obvious!", and of being somewhat disappointed that he didn't come up the notion of evolution by natural selection himself. But I'll bet Huxley isn't the only genius in history to think much the same thing upon reading of someone else's discoveries. It is so easy to forget how hard it is to come up with an idea, however simple and elegant the idea might be in hindsight, that is both novel and really makes sense.

 

[Sunstone]

I'm waiting for Uncle Sunstones drunk history briefs!

At the rate I'm going, that's sure to happen.

 

[Enoch07]

At the rate I'm going, that's sure to happen.

So long as it's not Uncle Sunstone drunk history in boxer briefs. I think we'll be ok.

 

[joe1776]

The subject is such a huge one that there are a large number of legitimate ways of summarizing it, don't you think?

By the way, one hypothesis -- which is actually a much stronger hypothesis than it might seem to be at first blush -- is the notion that humans evolved the critical thinking skills that much later on proved necessary for scientific inquiry when they learned to track animals for food.

Sure; that makes sense.

When I read your OP, my mind flashed back to a film I saw of a chimp sticking a reed into the hole of a termite nest. As the termites crawled up the reed, the chimp plucked them off to eat. Now, I can imagine chimp #2 seeing that would try the same thing and have the same results. There you have replication by chimp scientists.

 

[sayak83]

Good point! There were many factors at work, weren't there?

Yes. The thing is it has often been argued that the seeds of scientific and enlightenment thought is found throughout much of earlier history in many cultures. So why did it happen there and then? I can't help but think that the unique event of discovery and colonization of Americas that effectively quadrupled the landmass controlled by Western Europeans broke, for a few centuries, the Malthusian trap into which all agrarian civilizations have fallen again and again till time immemorial. The expanding population need not starve, but can go somewhere and cultivate and mine new continents. Mechanization was incentivized as labor was scarce in these new colonies even with expanding populations. The attempt to control far flung colonies spurred innovation in governance. The drive to explore and investigate received a huge boost as here was an immense example of entire lands with rich potentials that had never been known by the ancients or in the scriptures. The discovery and colonization of America by Europe is a singular event in world history, and I suspect other events are knock on effects from this.

 

[beenherebeforeagain]

The subject is such a huge one that there are a large number of legitimate ways of summarizing it, don't you think?

By the way, one hypothesis -- which is actually a much stronger hypothesis than it might seem to be at first blush -- is the notion that humans evolved the critical thinking skills that much later on proved necessary for scientific inquiry when they learned to track animals for food.

Another hypothesis is that humans developed the power of reasoning in order to win arguments over such things as where to hunt animals or find other resources, for guys to get a girl (or maybe even another guy) to sleep with them, and whether or not @Sunstone 's fashion sense in matching giraffe with wildebeest was or was not good.

 

[Augustus]

I think that, if the study of the history of science tells us anything, it should tell us how even simple ideas that now appear obvious to us were by no means simple or easy to come up with the first time around.

Best example: wheels on a suitcase.

We put a man on the moon before we put wheels on a suitcase. We used to lug a big heavy bag looking for a wheeled trolley to put it on, but not one of the millions of people doing this thought 'why not just put the wheels on the case?'.

We understood wheels, understood suitcases, understood the benefit of combining the two, but never made an astoundingly obvious (in theory) connection.

A 5 year old could have thought up that idea, yet no one did until the 1970s. Genius NASA scientists lugged their suitcases all the way to Florida to launch someone to the moon, probably complaining about how much they hated carrying them as they did so.