For 2,000 years scientists were exploring aspects of magic to help them with their work. Well, because it screwed up the whole idea of there being some sort of linear progression.
So why was it that reviewers at the time weren’t happy with his theory? “When you look at the history of science you find magic is central right up until the 18th century.” To a certain degree, magic and science had exactly the same aims. His idea was that the basis of science is experimentation and a lot of learned magic is actually about trying to discover the secrets of the natural world. What did he see as the link between magic and science? But Thorndike came along and said, actually, when you look at the history of science you find that magic is central to it right up until the 18th century. There were three stages of human intellectual development from magic to religion to science. Also, when Thorndike was writing in the early 20th century, there was this academic notion of societal progress as a linear progression. He used so many extracts from original sources. It’s not a book where you read all eight volumes in a row, but it has a huge wealth of information from a polyglot scholar who spent decades researching his subject. Yes, some cultures put oral knowledge above written works as a means of transmitting the truth, but when you record something in writing it’s preserved, so it doesn’t get corrupted by oral tradition.Īnd what is it about this book that really grabs you? The History of Magic and Experimental ScienceĪnd there’s this idea that books and magic go hand in hand, books being a way for people to record their secrets. Foreign Policy & International Relations.
0 kommentar(er)
