In the chapter “Renewal of the Mathematical
Spirit,” Kline discusses many aspects that lead to the rekindling of
mathematical interest. He mentions the
influence of Greek thought and expanding trading interests as major factors
leading to mathematical innovation. Lindberg further conveys the idea that the
Greeks had a major impact on Islamic science.
This displays the importance of
trade and exposure to other societies in the development of science and
mathematics. Another major aspect of
scientific advancement Kline presents is battle or war. Kline states “the needs of war have always
aroused nations to put forth money and efforts unimaginable during times of
peace (102).” He also mentions the idea
proposed by many scholars, including Francis Bacon and Rene Descartes, that the
foremost intention of science is the domination of the natural world by
man. He presents the idea that the
universe was “designed by God in accordance with mathematical laws” and it is
man’s goal to use science and mathematical laws to maintain a certain level of supremacy
over nature. Does this imply a level of
competition and a desire for dominance is required for the advancement of science? I do not believe it is man’s role on earth to
reign over nature as intellectuals such as Bacon and Descartes have
suggested. But the motivations of war
and competition do imply that the desire for power/control may be a significant
factor in the progression of science and mathematics.
I think that what Descartes and Bacon were trying to get at is that we were "given", by God, an advance level of cognition that is not matched by any other animal on Earth. It has to lead you to think that this gives us a certain level of power and dominance over all the other animals. I think another thing they were trying to do by saying that was to make the connection back to the bible. In Genesis it says how man was given rule over all the animals, and since those thinkers were coming from a time where to study math was to study God, it makes sense they were trying to connect back to the bible.
ReplyDeletePersonally, I think that Descartes and Bacon simply highlight another facet of what could possibly evoke mathematical growth but are not essential, and certainly do not always do so. It is my belief that mathematical growth, while perhaps showing a few similarities throughout certain civilizations and time periods, is more random than anything else, and just as you can point to multiple cuases for any certain event depending on perspective, so to can you point to many (possibly infinite) causes for mathematical growth, showing that perhaps a search for any discernable pattern is pointless. Well, perhaps not pointless, but certainly seems to show that we are looking too hard in the wrong direction. Instead of attempting to re-create past situations in which scientific progress flourished, why don't we as a society do new things in a search for further scientific truth? After all, what worked for the Greeks may not work for us.
ReplyDeleteI understand your hesitation to accept that mankind's only reason to study math and science is in order to learn to control and dominate the natural world, as it paints a rather unromantic and somewhat selfish view of learning. However, I have to say that I agree with Descartes and Bacon in this instance. While many find science and math innately interesting, if there were no end goal or direct results seen from the study of these subject, these fields probably would never have expanded beyond the most rudimentary basics. Doctors study the body to end disease, meteorologists study science to predict the weather, and engineers create devices that improve our quality of life. That being said, I believe we will never reach Descartes' goal of complete control over the natural world. Although the leaps mankind has made in science and math are incredible, it seems to me the more we learn to more we realize we still have to learn...
ReplyDeleteThis is a little off track but I think its provoking to think about and discuss.
ReplyDeleteThis reading brought to mind RADAR as a great example of a great scientific leap for mankind by means of something that was developed and researched for war purposes. As early as 1886, Heinrich Hertz showed that radio waves could be reflected from solid objects. During World War II, the ability to spot enemy airplanes, ships, or submarines was critical in strategizing allied forces. To give the Allies an edge, British and American scientists devoted much of their time to radar technologies allowing them to see for hundreds of miles, even at night. Even before the Second World War, researchers in France, Germany, Italy, Japan, the Netherlands, the Soviet Union, the United Kingdom, and the United States, had been independently and in great secrecy, developing technologies that would lead them to the modern version of radar. The research that went into improving radar helped set the stage for post-war research into the transistor which many consider the most important invention of the 20th century.
Unknown to researchers at the time, the invention of the radar would revolutionized the way the world looks at weather, essentially discovering modern meteorology as we know it today. When using the radar on the field of battle it was noticed that clouds producing rain would also appear on the radar in the form of a transmitted signal returning to the radar. Scientists at the time were surprised by accidently discovering that they could also see weather systems on the radar. Research into developing use of radar systems for weather quickly became the goal for Allied forces, because if you know the weather over a specific area, your troops can be deployed safely avoiding inclement weather. Using radar to understand weather for demotic purposes would also be studied at great extent. The use of radar systems during World War II would be huge in advancing the science of meteorology and meteorologist understand of the atmosphere as a whole. Without the invention of the RADAR for use as a tool of war, it is likely that many things we use on a regular basis would not exist today and strives to understand weather would not be in the foreground of our research today. This like the reading was trying to point out shows how we as humans use our understanding of the world around us to assert our dominance of our world in ways never thought possible, by essentially predicting the future.
I think Bacon and Descartes' ideas point to an early notion of technology, or applied science. I don't think this implies a "desire for dominance" is necessary for the advancement of science, but I think without some application in mind for the particular advancement, science is for its own sake without an end goal. I think, like Kate mentioned above, that these useful applications of science are the fuel which drives the expansion of technology. Control and dominance, I believe, can take on a negative connotation, but in the context of the passage, I think Bacon and Descartes imply not a control for the sake of control, but a control for the sake of the betterment of human-kind. I think, for instance, of recent technological advances in alternative energy. Scientists working to develop wind turbines and solar panels do, in a sense, attempt to control nature by harnessing wind and solar radiation to do work which is useful to humans, but they do so for a purpose greater than human glorification. The drive for such projects and the reason why such projects receive funding is the desire to conserve natural resources, while maintaining human comfort and convenience, which both depend on a ready store of energy.
ReplyDeleteWell said Rachel! I found it interesting how Kline argued that the Protestant Revolution had a real impact on mathematical advancement. The Revolution inspired people to begin to think independently, not solely relying on the thoughts and teachings of their predecessors. While in this case, this notion of independent thinking was intended to be applied in religious contexts, it indirectly inspired the same independent thinking to be applied in other fields as well. As the Protestant cause grew, people began to accept some of the findings of thinkers which had previously been suppressed by the Catholic Church. Getting back to your question though, I think it is hard to say whether or not a level of competition and a desire for dominance is necessary for further scientific advancement. I would argue that there is definitely something to be said for such competition and desire for dominance in terms of scientific advancement. We have seen countless examples of achievements and developments arising from incentive. When we have a problem, it is human nature to want to solve that problem. We are driven by the incentive to eliminate such problems, and effectively and continuously improve our lifestyle. For example, our ancestors needed a way to make sure their crops would be able to grow even if rain was irregular. With the incentive of having enough to eat in mind, farmers developed irrigation techniques, ensuring this would not be a problem. Throughout history many advancements have come in this way. Incentive has definitely been a driving force of our development for hundreds of years. I do not think that it would be fair to go as far as to say that this incentive or desire for dominance is necessarily required for any further advancement. Curiosity is another element of human nature, and there are advancements that have been made by mistake, with no real incentive behind them.
ReplyDelete(I meant Protestant Reformation!) woops!
DeleteThe whole thing about mathematics in war threw me off for a bit because I never thought of using math in war. The one thing that shocked me more was the way that the Greeks said that, "mathematics was more than a reliable approach to knowledge; it was the key to nature's behavior" (pg 105). I just thought this was a unique idea because I would've never thought that math would describe natures behavior. I always thought that we, as mathematicians, would seek out patterns we see in the world and claim that math is proving nature's behavior. "nature was written in the language of geometry" (pg 105). Again, I guess I just wanted to bring this up to attention to prove how much we, as humans, rely on men and mathematics to prove that nature is the way it is made.
ReplyDeleteThe final thing, that has nothing to do with what I wrote earlier, but I thought was weird was the fact that he killed himself, or so they think, because he wanted to make his prediction to come true. That part I didn't get, but for some reason it caught my attention
Bacon and Descartes see math as a way to control the world around them, however many scientists in Renaissance and Greek saw math as a way to discover the world around them. “Many people credit the rise of modern science to the introduction of experimentation on a large scale and believe that mathematics served only occasionally as a handy tool.” (p 105.) We discussed the very first day of class that mathematics was a series of patterns; it was a way of creating a language to define the world around us. Math may seem as a control technique in times of war to further our ability to dominate but I believe it is more of a self-understanding in order that we may be more prepared.
DeleteI don’t think that a “competition and a desire for dominance is a [requirement] for the advancement of science”. While it is true that it was believed that mathematics was “the key to nature’s behavior” (Kline 105) and Kepler noted that “the universe is mathematical in structure and behavior, and nature acts in accordance with inexorable and immutable laws” (Kline 105), this does not suggest to me that man wants to dominate the world. Rather, I think that mankind wants to understand the world better, and they believe that mathematics will help with this. In regards to the theme of war that came up in the reading, I think that while that did inspire the people to study mathematics even “harder”, it is not the only thing that did this. Look at us today, I mean I’m sure there are people out there in the U.S. using math to calculate how to dominate an enemy if we were to go to war again. It’s only natural for people to want to defend themselves!
ReplyDeleteIf anything, I think that Kline wanted to make a point that the people at the time were inspired to use math because of physical applications, similar to how geometry was first “created”.
I think what makes human beings the most unique animal on earth is our cognitive ability and the level of our grit. But then, a lot of our cognitive abilities are found in other animals too, but just divided amongst them.
ReplyDelete