Two versions of science and engineering history, Arthur Koestler and L. Sprague de Camp

[Robert Zwilling]

L. Sprague de Camp's The Ancient Engineers written in 1963 features facts, speculation about what wasn't know then, and a sarcastic wit when it came to commenting about the effects of non engineers who tried to engineer engineering. The story illustrates people's efforts to harness the power the Earth has to offer by mostly a system of trial and error. Each effort building on the last one until the chain of communication gets broken and people start all over again.

Arthur Koestler's The Sleepwalkers: A History of Man's Changing Vision of the Universe written in 1959, rings as true today as it did in 1959. That was probably the easier read. While it was set during a time when religion had a lot to say about what was published that concerned the natural workings of the world, the people in the book managed to stay out of the church's reach most of time. They did have a lot of faith, but it really came into play when they used their own faith in what the were doing to fill in the gaps of their astronomical undertakings. Looking at the stars only brings us closer to understanding how our own planet's existence can be understood in real time.

Reading these two books showed me how belief is necessary. When you don't know what you need to know, believing in yourself is more important than believing in doctrines that are only road signs from past journeys. Doing the work yourself makes it possible for things you are working on to change into a more understandable pattern of arrangement. When we reach a point in time where we have enough information to start accurately manufacturing our own information we don't need all the puzzle pieces to guess what the final picture looks like. That's how the mind is supposed to work, by sleepwalking your way to a better existence. The conscious world has too many choices that turn out to be obstacles.

 

[Venusian Broon]

I haven't read, from memory, any of Sprague de Camp's work but I have read Koestler's Sleepwalkers.

I thoroughly devoured the book, as you point out it is old but it also has a great deal of sense in it's arguments.

I'm not sure what you mean about 'believing in yourself' - I didn't get anything like that from the book. The point of the title was when the ancient Greeks circa 600 BCE had everything in place to move forward to a true scientific revolution and a better understanding of the universe. Yet they, and their intellectual descendants did not...well, not until the advent of the 17th century. Why did we sleepwalk for 2000 years?

They are always 'doctrines' or ideas that come from the past, but we must always take them critically. This is something that I would argue is now a core doctrine of modern science (Is that a meta-doctrine?). If belief is involved it would be in my case, for example, 'I believe Einstein's General Theory of Relatively with evidence we have amassed is correct, but I am willing to critically examine new evidence and new ideas that may make this theory incorrect' would be a statement that I think I could reasonably make. And sometimes even old ideas have legs and are still very much worthwhile. Throwing out all of it because you believe it to just be unthinking 'doctrine' is throwing out a whole tribe of babies with the bathwater. Use old ideas and test them, they are points that we can use to expand into new areas of thought that may, or may not work.

This is clear from the discussion of Copernicus. The most fascinating point, for me, about his heliocentric model of the solar system is that it is more complex with more variables than geocentric model that was being used at the time. A true scientific viewpoint would rightly put more doubt on the Copernican model! Occums razor and all that.

What we required was a better understanding - it required Kepler's insight that the bodies of the solar system actually used ellipses, rather than circles. Hence a basis for a new model of the solar system. Yet that still wasn't enough...

...most importantly what was required was real evidence. Cue Galileo with his telescope - observing other objects orbiting Jupiter, hence showing that not everything orbited the earth, and the phases of Venus demonstrating that the Ptolemaic model could not be true.

Which is one of the reasons we did not become 'scientific' in the 5th Century BCE - we needed a huge number of small advances, some technological, some with how we actually thought - most of which were not clear at the time that they were required (hence we were sleepwalking). To be fair, I think you are arguing something similar, perhaps.

However note that there must be other people, people not discussed in this work did worked as hard or harder on their own beliefs and ideas, but they were totally wrong. I recently did a lot of research of Kepler and the 'age of alchemists'. Believe me there were people working very much like Kepler but completely on the wrong track. And hence largely forgotten now.

So I'd argue it was not just faith alone - Kepler and Co. were concerned with actual real science. They all believed certain things but they also wanted to prove their hypothesis with evidence. Evidence that could be tested by others. Interestingly one of the reasons the ancient Greeks did not go 'full science' is that they largely remained philosophers. Yes there were experimental moments and observations but such moments would largely fizzle out. Logic was found to be good enough in intellectual circles for them and later thinkers.

With regards to religion. Well, at the time Koestler was most concerned with was late medieval/early modern (essentially the lives of Copernicus, Kepler, Galileo and a tiny bit of Newton), higher education in Western Europe at the time was a concern of the church. They were the only organisation with the cash, assets and desire to educate.

So all three were not 'out of reach of the church'. Copernicus actually had a pretty good relationship with ecclesiastical authorities - I think his own doubts held him back on the publishing of his theory. Kepler was actually really very religious, but disliked a great deal of the astrological work that he was required to do - the start of separating science from pseudo-science. However as a protestant in the reformation period it was undoubtedly a tricky time. Thankfully a great deal of his work had been completed well before the horror that was the thirty years war. Galileo's relationship with the church is well documented, but also a great many of his problems were caused by his own personality, he seems to have made enemies quite easily when he didn't need to.

TL;DR To sum up belief is necessary - yes it is at the root for all things, but for trying to make sense of the natural world, evidence and testing: science, is a wonderful set of beliefs and processes that have shown to be have been very fruitful and are necessary (at least for me) to understand the universe.

Also, I don't think the mind works by sleepwalking, it has the tools and training that it has from the circumstances of it's education and place in time - we just don't have all the evidence that we need at any time to reach the 'truth'. We can only reach conclusions and push forward with what we've got.

I will look out for the The Ancient Engineers as that seems pretty interesting (It will go on the pile of fifty books that I am due to read behind me though if I find it), Cheers!

 

[Robert Zwilling]

I was thinking it was the belief in themselves that mattered not the belief systems they were immersed in. A lot of their work was in the sky where they couldn't touch it but it helps explain Earth itself. The engineers were immersed in their work up to their eyeballs, almost everything they did produced immediate results that changed the world bit by bit. They built a belief system anyone can see. Everyone was supposed to be answering to higher authorities, but too many times those authorities have only the authority of their position and nothing else supporting their decisions. The Engineers is packed with events, people, inventions and an unusual dating system to mark the passage of time. I don't think there were any women engineers in it. Astrology when it first started was used to determine the time of year for various state functions, agricultural needs, which did bring the stars to Earth. I guess it was only natural they couldn't help making a buck on the side.

 

[Venusian Broon]

I don't think there were any women engineers in it.

I don't know what historical periods the book is looking at, but I'd guess there would be slim pickings until you got to the modern era - not that there were not intelligent and genius women before that; of course there were - but I'd guess it was a man's world in Education and Engineering pre-1800.

Astrology when it first started was used to determine the time of year for various state functions, agricultural needs, which did bring the stars to Earth. I guess it was only natural they couldn't help making a buck on the side.

I agree with you, but it's odd calling it 'astrology' which has a very definitive meaning today. I think of it as an amalgam of astronomy and astrology - a lot of observations and insights into the patterns that they found, followed by 'well what does it mean?'

The second or modern astrology part - or 'As above, so below' - I think was actually the main breadwinner for most of the time, rather than a side project. Soothsayers, diviners and astrologers of all sorts were extremely common in ancient times. It was rare in history to be paid just to think - it rarely produced anything of benefit!

Even Kepler, who was officially on the Holy Roman Emperor's pay to publish Brahe's star catalogue and who I think almost could be seen to be one of the first modern scientists, essentially was used to cast horoscopes for the Emperor about current issues. And if he wasn't paid, which happened a lot, he resorted to publishing almanacs filled with predictions of lurid events. We (at least we physicists, he's not well known in other areas) remember him for his three laws and the revolution that they heralded, something that I think would make him happy if he knew.

 

[Robert Zwilling]

The Ancient Engineers covers a very long time range, from Egypt to the middle ages, traditional historical areas. The Americas were left out because their activity has only become apparent in recent times. Women didn't/don't get credit as a fact of life so the accomplishments they made in the past stay in the past. There were too many situations that could be observed that could be improved that it's impossible that only men would be changing/inventing things. Back in their time witches were the equivalent of modern day pharmacists but most people picture them as spell casting broom riders, no thanks to Hollywood. Western society's equivalent of the tribal male shaman whose word meant life or death but not for him. Witches opening their mouths to the wrong person or wrong time could be enough to get them killed.

 

[sknox]

>I recently did a lot of research of Kepler and the 'age of alchemists'.

Do you have any references on that, Venusian Broom? I have an interest in that area for purposes of some fiction. I have a basic knowledge of the era (PhD in early modern, but my focus was on urban society and economics), so I don't need beginner books. But I'd love to learn more about those alchemists and even a biography of Kepler--preferably one that focuses on the man more than on ellipses. <g>

Good summary, btw. I agree on all points.

 

[Venusian Broon]

>I recently did a lot of research of Kepler and the 'age of alchemists'.

Do you have any references on that, Venusian Broom? I have an interest in that area for purposes of some fiction. I have a basic knowledge of the era (PhD in early modern, but my focus was on urban society and economics), so I don't need beginner books. But I'd love to learn more about those alchemists and even a biography of Kepler--preferably one that focuses on the man more than on ellipses. <g>

Good summary, btw. I agree on all points.

Well, the way I attacked it was to focus on the reign of the Holy Roman Emperor Rudolph II, because he really was so central in supporting esoteric and scientific learning during his time in Prague.

Really it was the age of the 'wandering scholar' and you get the impression that every devotee and seeker of arcane truth tried for Prague at some point...as well as most of the adventurous scoundrels and conmen of Europe hungry for gold. And of course Kepler spent the most important part of his life there. Read the history of that period, place and Emperor and you should come across mentions and appearances of all the important alchemical players!

It truly is a fascinating period - however I'm not a history PhD - so I filled in some of the 'basics' using Peter H. Wilson's The Holy Roman Empire and Mark Greengrass's Christendom Destroyed: Europe 1517-1648. To my eyes both are reasonably academic, but perhaps the latter is a bit more focused and therefore more readable because the time period it discusses is much more restricted. They probably don't interest you, with your expertise and they have little to say about alchemy, but I particularly enjoyed the latter.

As for Rudolph and what went on in his court, I found Henry Carrington Bolton's The Follies of Science at the Court of Rudolph II - a book published in 1904 and thus showing it's age - but actually there's quite a lot of very useful detail within it. (Which surprisingly, I found, was almost repeated word for word in the next book I'm going to mention.)

I should point out that this comes from a publisher that prints and distributes out of copyright books. They have some very interesting titles - including a selection of esoteric books, with a few discussing alchemy. It appears that there is a fee if you want access to the million or so they have (£5.99/month) or you can read parts of the books for free. (Or you can just purchase a particular book like I did!) Anyway their website is: Forgotten Books if you want to peruse.

And then I got Peter Marshall's The Mercurial Emperor: The Magic Circle of Rudolf II in Renaissance Prague. This is from 2007 so it's better aligned to modern tastes! It also has a reasonable bibliography, which you might be able to use to delve even deeper. (Although as ever, this usually only makes sense if you can gain access to a big and well stocked university library ). The book itself is more focused on Rudolph, but there's a great deal on the intellectual circles he supported at Prague.

Both books, rightly in my opinion, also have quite sizable discussions about Kepler and Brahe, but you'll also find Paracelus, John Dee/Edward Kelley, Giordano Bruno and a host of others.

I used the research to do a 'little' novella - a sort of Renaissance horror/SF/fantasy - it's a bit flawed, so it's resting in my 'chest of don't-know-what-to-with manuscripts' but I had a great deal of fun throwing in everything including the kitchen sink into it

 

[sknox]

Thanks! That was good stuff. Greengrass is very good, and Peter Wilson is a Big Name, but I don't believe I've read those particular books. I'll definitely look for Bolton. When mining for story details, the old authors are great precisely because their focus was different. Not great for academic research, but they would often include anecdotes and such that were, um, colorful. I've got a ton of stuff on Emperor Frederick II's youth, for example, that wouldn't ever make it into a modern biography. But geez, the Boy of Apulia learning magic from an Arab sorcerer? Gold! My go-to for antiquated work is the Internet Archive, but I'll have a look at Forgotten Books.

Anyway, the Marshall book is great. I used to tell my students to find the most recent work they could, then turn immediately to the bibliography and work backward from there.

So, thanks again for the references. This is not for a current project, but I'm filing this information away for when I undertake chronicling the great change from medieval magic to modern, "scientific" magic in Altearth.