NavList:

   

Reply

Frank wrote:

> Just bear in mind that "The Sleepwalkers" is  Arthur Koestler's personal
> opinion of how science operates, and many consider it  anti-science. His
> "evidence" from history was chosen to match his opinion.  Koestler was an
> amateur historian.

Yes. As noted I found it leap frogged about, there was way too much
character development for my tastes, and posturing protagonists and
antagonists.  Could have been edited down to 200+ pages IMHO.

While I am not even in the same league history-wise as many list members, I
felt it also glossed over or ignored completely other important
developments. I was not pleased with some of his writing style, such as
references to Plato's Cave before he introduced the actual concept.  Had I
not already known, the earlier references would have been lost.

Last, when he notes that so-an-so had it figured out B.C, that was totally
self serving.  We are in full agreement.  While not meaning to cast stones
at the ancients or their achievements, there were a LOT of theories floating
about.  With enough guesses recorded, there was a good chance one or more
was pretty close 2000 years later, be it heliocentricity or the diameter of
the earth.

I recall a passage in one of Feynman's books.  He received a message about
the patent for the use of atomic power in aircraft (if I recall). At first
he thought it was a joke or misdirected. Then he remembered the government
had the developers of the atomic bomb brainstorm, and write down any
possible use of atomic power they could dream up--no matter how far
fetched--so the government could patent it in advance!

Bill

   

Reply