A Brief History of Science, Part 3: The Copernican Revolution to the Neo-Darwinian Synthesis (2-3)

Part 3 of my 3 part brief history of science, covering The Copernican Revolution to the Neo-Darwinian Synthesis. Up next: Three views on the nature of science.

Phlogiston, bitches!: http://www.qwantz.com/index.php?comic=574

Category:

Education

Tags:

• Giadorno Bruno
• Galileo Galilei
• Isaac Newton
• Joseph Preistly
• Antoine Lavoisier
• Charles Darwin
• Gregor Mendel

[Akatam0t0ma]

I hope you mention in your next video Karl Popper, without whose brilliant idea of falsifiability(Which pretty much debunks any argument of religion as being scientific) science would not be what it is today

[SisyphusRedeemed]

@Akatam0t0ma Popper won't be in the next video, but there will be at least one whole video dedicated to him (probably more) and to falsificationism later on.

[colourmegone]

Chemistry is yet another powerful example of the benefits of democratising knowledge (see my post on pt. 2). And phlogiston theory was first proposed in 1667 in a book called "Physical Education" (NOT about the benefits of exercise!) by Johann Joachim Becher. It was scientific orthodoxy that led Priestly astray, not his own theories. Where did you say you teach?

[SisyphusRedeemed]

@colourmegone Summarizing 3,000 years of intellectual history in a coherent narrative that fits in the space of a sitcom is really, really hard. Some details will inevitably be glossed over. So I'm not sure if I'm reading your tone right, but if you're suggesting I'm making gross mistakes I'd say you're being horribly pedantic.

And to suggest that phlogiston wasn't Priestly theory is to let him off the hook. I didn't say he invented it, but he did own it and defended it.

[colourmegone]

@SisyphusRedeemed Your summary is excellent and well presented but there are some flaws, e.g. if Priestly defended phlogiston he did so from within the fortress of scientific orthodoxy. To suggest that phlogiston was fallacious would have been tantamount to questioning e.g. evolution. Now I believe that evolution is correct but I also believe that orthodoxy can do more harm than good.

[SisyphusRedeemed]

@colourmegone I fully accept that I have some flaws. And I'm sorry if I seem a little testy, but I get frustrated when people complain that I didn't get every single detail of this 3,000 year history right in such a short space. This work is hard, and such nit-picking can make one feel unappreciated.

As for your point about orthodoxy, you're absolutely correct. And that will be a concern for both Kuhn and Fereyabend, whom I'll cover later on.

[nakedapedude]

@Howie47

To suggest that discoveries in genetics are discrediting evolutionary theory is simply to be ignorant of what is reality. The field of genetics has done more to support and enrich evolutionary theory than any other field in science. Your claims are pure fantasy and are no doubt the result of you continuing to feed your confirmation bias on creationist websites rather than actually studying what is going on in the real world. Yet again you fail monumentally.

[SisyphusRedeemed]

@michalchik Really, 3,000 years; 30 minutes. It is really hard to condense it all down. So pardon me if I didn't get every nuance and detail absolutely right. I was trying for a coherent narrative that would work in the space of a sitcom. I don't mind corrections of fact, but to complain that I didn't give full credit to two figures (both of whom I did mention by name) for all of their contributions seems really pedantic.

[HaoSci]

Could you drop the word "fittest", please? It does not seem to make any sense.

[SephieRothe]

A decade ago my parents and I got lost in Rome and wound up in a square with a statue of Bruno were we found the best cafe meal of or week there.

[Totallyhip30s]

This video is very well done. Powerpoint slides are normally so boring, but the narrator's excitement and energy really grabs your attention. There is no denying that some details have been left out, but I feel like there are enough names, dates, and topics that point you in the right direction if you are interested in obtaining detailed information on any one of the ideas. Well done

[BlameRepublicans]

@LearnerChess lol ha-ha there is no god. lol

[StAugustine79]

Corpuscular and Mechanistic philosophies were the main paradigms that replaced the previous Ptolemaic/Aristotelian views previously adopted by the Church. Atomism and greek mathematics revived from the Renaissance was improved upon and gave rise to new theories by the sixteenth century.

[skoockum]

Obviously phlogiston is absurd, but at the time it went a very long way toward explaining the world as it was understood. I can't help but think that dark matter, dark energy and quantum particles popping in and out of existence are essentially the modern version of phlogiston -- sure they make perfect sense within the framework of present knowledge, but they really don't go much beyond that. I really really hope I'm still around to see the next paradigm come to light.

[mdiem]

Great videos. A lot of information in just half-an-hour!

[mdiem]

Newton didn't necessarily die a virgin. Celibacy means not getting married. Chastity is abstaining from sex.

That said, from what I know about Newton, he probably had a hard time getting a date.

[Lpizzles]

Wow, these lecture videos are AWESOME. Thank you so much for sharing them on YouTube. Clearly you know what's up. One suggestion though, white text on gray background strains the eyes. All the same, you rock!

[LearnerChess]

Bruno was NOT burned [alive] at the stack for saying there were other planets. He was murdered for denying the divinity of christ.