The Scientists: A History of Science Told Through the Lives of Its Greatest Inventors [Paperback]

One of the things that makes his book so readable is that he focuses a lot of his energy on the lives and personalities of the great scientists. Though we get a grounding in the theories, we get more about science as a human pursuit which is often forgotten in our technologically-swamped age. It is a nice approach through which we not only get to hear about the ones everybody knows--Galileo, Newton, Darwin, Einstein, etc.--but a number of names with which even a science teacher like myself is less familiar.

My main problem with this book is that Gribbin's prejudices show through loud and clear. He is clearly not a supporter of Thomas Kuhn's ideas of scientific revolution which I think have a certain validity and usefulness though Gribbin is correct in that science would progress even without revolutions; however, it would not likely have progressed in the way that Gribbin himself outlines so well. Gribbin also clearly has some problems with the really famous scientists like Einstein and, in particular, Newton. I'm not quite clear why Gribbin is so anti-Newton but his assertions that everything discovered by Newton and Einstein would have eventually been discovered by other scientists, while likely true, dismisses the fact that these genius certainly accelerated our understanding. In addition, in my view, men like Newton, Darwin and Einstein had a capability to see the big picture far beyond that of any of their contemporaries. They deserve the credit they usually receive and Gribbin's complaints often come off sounding like sour grapes from a less successful scientist.

Still, Gribbin makes no secret of his views and no apologies and I can appreciate that. He has done a great service with this book. Obviously, with all the ground he has to cover, even at 600+ pages he cannot go into much depth; however, he presents a fascinating story of the men and women who have done so much to shape our modern world. It is worth reading for any educated person.

The topic our kind author, John Gribbin, is tackling is very large and no one book can hope to cover the entire topic. Even, as is the case here, in a book of almost 700 pages. Gribbin has chosen to focus on the interplay among the scientists, mainly when he wants to segway from one scientist to another, and the social implications of their discoveries... including much on the political realties of the time. Especially in the case of Galileo Galilei, where the political issues can be as important as his scientific discoveries.

I would say that the great weakness to this approach is that he focus's a lot of those who invented things, and less on those who developed new ways of thinking about the world. He claims to be doing the later, and does do a good job of it at times, but he appears to ignore the implications of a quote from Galileo he likes to use a lot: "science is written in the language of mathematics". Gribbin almost totally ignores the contributions the people he covers made to mathematics, and pure mathematicians have trouble even getting a mention from him. For example, in discussing Newton he could have discussed Gottfried Leibnitz a little, but instead just mentions that Newton and him argued about who discovered Calculus as leaves it at that.

The second great weakness of this book is there is no quick introduction to the best of the Greek and Roman philosophers who did a lot of science. Aristotle was thought highly of for a lot of good reasons by people in the middle-ages, and he was right about a lot of things. It is easy, especially now-a-days, to think that the ancient Greeks sure missed the boat on a lot things. Aristotle gets mentioned, now and again, is passing, but I haven't even run across a mention of Archimedes (when discussing Newton and Calculus it would have been nice to point out that Archimedes came close to discovering it almost 2000 years before. Some think the only reason he missed was the faulting numeral system he had to work with), Pythagorus, or Euclid.

Hindsight is 20/20, and the Greeks and other ancients got most of the things correct, especially when you consider that they didn't have many of the tools that the later true scientists had access too.

Then there are the two great oversights among great scientists that I think would have site well into the mold he was using: Pasteur and Goddard. Not minor folks in the history of science.

Because he couldn't cover everything, I overlook these problems and still give it a high rating. People should know that their is a lot of ground to cover in science and the history of science and seek out more information on the topic. Especially since an informed populace is the requirement and basis for a democracy. People need to understand how science and true scientists work in order to have informed opinions about many of the issues facing society today.

Still a fine work and worthy of anybody library.