An extraordinary history of humanity’s changing vision of the universe. In this masterly synthesis, Arthur Koestler cuts through the sterile distinction between. Arthur Koestler. The Sleepwalkers. A History of Man’s changing vision of the Universe. With an Introduction by. Herbert Butterfield. 1. Awakening. We can add to. ovelist, essayist and political man of action, Arthur Koestler emerges in this book as a historian of the sciences. He traces, with a comic writer’s eye and a.
|Published (Last):||28 May 2007|
|PDF File Size:||12.9 Mb|
|ePub File Size:||6.21 Mb|
|Price:||Free* [*Free Regsitration Required]|
Goodreads helps you keep track of books you want to read. Want to Read saving….
The Sleepwalkers: A History of Man’s Changing Vision of the Universe by Arthur Koestler
Want to Read Currently Sleepealkers Read. Refresh and try again. Open Preview See a Problem? Thanks for telling us about the problem. Return to Book Page. Preview — The Sleepwalkers by Arthur Koestler. An extraordinary history of humanity’s changing vision of the universe. In this masterly synthesis, Arthur Koestler cuts through the sterile distinction between ‘sciences’ and ‘humanities’ to bring to life the whole history of cosmology from the Babylonians to Newton.
He shows how the tragic split between science and religion arose and how, in particular, the modern world- An extraordinary history of humanity’s changing vision sleepwslkers the universe. He shows how the tragic split between science and religion arose and how, in particular, the modern world-view kosstler the medieval world-view in the scientific revolution of the seventeenth century.
He also provides vivid and judicious pen-portraits of a string sleepwakkers great scientists and makes clear the role that political bias and unconscious prejudice played in their creativity. Paperbackpages. To see what your friends thought of this book, please sign up.
To ask other readers questions about The Sleepwalkersplease sign up. I am confused by the very end of the book. Here’s the last sentence: What does “it” refer to? What unites all thinkers and their ideas which the author cites? Hung Tran Plato is obssessed with the idea that everything can be constructed from the above, sleepalkers centralization and theorization.
For example, Platonist always …more Plato is obssessed with the idea that everything can be constructed from the above, by centralization and theorization. For example, Platonist always argue that most of inventions are directly instructed by the Government; however, the book has proved the opposite, those inventions were found by chance. See 1 question arthkr The Sleepwalkers…. Lists with This Book. People seriously interested in the sleepwalkwrs of science.
Koestler’s book presents a rather good history of cosmology from ancient times until the late 17th century. There are four main sections, respectively devoted to the classical world-view i. In the first section, I had not appreciated to what extent scientific progress can go backwards as well as forwards. Koestler describes the Pythagorean school – like Penrose, a arghur d Koestler’s book presents a rather good history of cosmology from ancient times until the late 17th century.
Koestler describes the Pythagorean school – like Penrose, a modern disciple, he considers Pythagoras one of the most important figures in all world history – and shows how they built up a strikingly modern aleepwalkers of astronomy between the 6th and 3rd centuries B.
Among sleepwaljers triumphs, they correctly deduced that the Earth was round and rotates, and were able koeshler obtain good estimates for its radius, the distance to the Moon, and even the distance to the Sun. Aristarchus, the last major figure in this line of scientists, developed a plausible heliocentric theory and was greatly respected for centuries after his death.
But then Plato and Aristotle severed the link between theory and observation and reverted to a system which placed the Earth back in the middle sleepqalkers the universe, with everything else rotating around it on an increasingly complex system of crystal spheres; this new geocentric theory received its final incarnation in the work of Ptolemy, in the second century A.
After the fall of Roman civilization, even this was lost, and by the arthurr century A. It was interesting to see how it took several hundred more years to rediscover Ptolemaic astronomy, which was then treated almost literally as Gospel truth. Koestler makes fun of the medieval mind-set, but I wondered what would happen if our own civilization collapsed and science reverted to a much more primitive stage.
Someone who found a miraculously preserved book on General Relativity and mananaged to figure out what it meant probably wouldn’t be too critical. The detailed account of Copernicus was also illuminating, though here, again, I thought Koestler was a artgur unfair. He paints Copernicus as a timid nerd who was unable to free himself from the Ptolemaic model and strike out in a genuinely new direction, removing the cycles and epicycles altogether.
Well, Copernicus could perhaps have achieved more: It isn’t as well-known as it should be that the Copernican lseepwalkers used the same machinery as the Ptolemaic one – intricate arrangements of revolving spheres – but Copernicus’s argument was that the arrangement of spheres was simpler if you let the Earth rotate and go round the Sun.
It took a while for people to notice Copernicus’s work, but when they did the effect was dramatic. The longest section in the book is about Kepler, clearly Koestler’s favorite.
I had not appreciated quite how fundamental Kepler’s contribution to science was: Koestler argues that he was the first person to formulate a modern scientific law, based on detailed observations and expressed in fully quantitative terms as a mathematical formula, and that he prepared the way for Newton.
The process by which Kepler got there is again described in great detail, and I was particularly impressed with Kepler’s first attempt to explain the orbit of Mars. His arthug was quite good; it agreed with the observations to within 8 minutes of arc, which would have satisfied most people.
But Kepler felt he could do better, junked the solution, and spent several more years messing with the kooestler until he derived his First and Second Kosetler. The accounts of his personal sleepwalkerss were also entertaining, and I loved the section about how Tycho Brahe’s son-in-law tried to manipulate him into being included as a co-author, but backed down when Kepler added financial conditions to the deal.
If he hadn’t been so cheap, they would now been called the Kepler-Tengnagel Laws.
But the most surprising part was the chapter sleepwwalkers Galileo, which differed from the familiar account to such a large extent that I could hardly believe my eyes. Instead of being a heroic figure cowed into silence by the reactionary forces of the Inquisition, Koestler’s Galileo comes across as an arrogant and dishonest jerk.
The disagreement with the Church is usually portrayed as simply being about the question of whether the Earth went round the Sun or vice versa, with Galileo clearly being the good guy. Koestler points out a host of perplexing divergences from the myth. To start with, Galileo was not defending state-of-the-art science, which was Kepler’s system, but the outdated Copernican universe, by then nearly a century old; he had never bothered to read Kepler’s books properly.
The contrast was not against the traditional Ptolemaic system everything goes round the Earthbut against the much more sophisticated system proposed by Tycho Brahe the Sun and the Moon go round the Earth, all the other planets go round the Sun.
And worst, Slwepwalkers had in fact no evidence at all to support the Copernican sleepwalkdrs against the Tychonian! The only thing that would have helped him was evidence that the stars moved slightly every year as a result of the Earth’s movement around the Sun; but his instruments were nowhere near sensitive enough to measure stellar parallax, and in the event he cheated and fabricated a transparently incorrect argument. I had seen zrthur related version before in Feyerabend’s Against Methodbut wasn’t sure I should believe koestlr.
Well, clearly I must check arfhur with the primary sources, which I am ashamed to say I have not read. Koestler’s book is by no means perfect.
On Rereading Arthur Koestler’s Sleepwalkers
He puts in more detail than he needs to, sometimes for no obvious reason, and it feels too long. He is not very good at science, and it is painfully clear why he stopped with Newton: I found most of his digressions into philosophy unconvincing.
But he’s found an astonishing amount of good material and assembled it into a compelling story. If you’re interested in learning where modern science comes slrepwalkers, you might want to check him out.
View all 8 comments. Apr 12, Ted rated it it was amazing Shelves: This is a wonderfully readable and interesting account of the history of astronomy, and to some extent cosmology, up to and xleepwalkers Newton. Of particular interest are the quite detailed biographical sections of Copernicus, Tycho Brahe, and Kepler.
I’m lengthening this review today by giving the table of contents. This should present a pretty fair idea of what Koestler covers. This much of the book consumes over pages. The book has probably been in print ever since it was published in Very readable for anyone with an interest. The Misanthrope Next review: The Crusades Older review: Organization Man William White Next library review: The Dreamtime Book very cool paintings depicting Aboriginal myths I’ve never managed to get into Darkness At Noon.
Poeple give it to me and they say “ooooh” and “you must” and “you’ll love” and maybe one day I will, but so far I haven’t. And that annoys me on some level because everywhere I go I run into Koestler references. It’s in V for Vendetta, it’s artgur in the kind of books I enjoy reading. Plus, on the face of it, it’s a book I really should enjoy.
I completely see why everyone expects me to have read it or to flip out when I do. But I’ve never managed to get into Darkness At Noon. THIS book, I do get. I am even now reading and re-reading it, back to front and side to side and from the index and from the cover. And it is full of the best of stuff. One of them is very subservient and obedient, and very often that is a good way. Very often, especially with fiction, it is almost the only way.
But this is not fiction and in this case I am not so much following Koestler’s flow sleepwalkees I am skipping from current to current in this little bit of his head and everywhere I swim I meet the biggest most awesome sharks and the most colourful fish. Let’s leave that metaphor to go where it will.
The point slespwalkers that from my perspective right now, this is a golden book. Anaximander’s vision of the Earth? This is the kind of book writers should read. View all 3 comments. Feb 07, Szplug rated it really liked it.